Notes and References

Chapter 1

1. See C. F. Edson, AM, p. 44.

2. For the chronology see Hamilton, PA, p. 7.

3. Philip's supposed regency for his brother Perdiccas' son Amyntas rests on dubious evidence, that of Justin 8.5.9–10, and has lately been challenged in a penetrating article by J. R. Ellis, ‘The Security of the Macedonian Throne under Philip II’, AM, pp. 68–75.

4. cf. A. Aymard, ‘Le protocole royal grec et son évolution’, REA 50 (1948), 232–63.

5. See now S. Marinatos, AM, pp. 45–52.

6. Suda s.v. Κάρανος.

7. The sixth day of the Macedonian month Loïos; cf. Hamilton, PA, p. 7, and E.J. Bickerman, Chronology of the Ancient World, London, 1968, pp. 20–26, 38–40. But surely the news had reached Philip earlier.

8. Plut. Moral. 177C 3 ( = 105A, 666A).

9. Hdt 3.40–41.

10. Seltman GC² p. 200 with pl. xlvi, nos. 11–14; Head-Hill-Walker, Guide, p. 39 with pl. IIIB, no. 20.

11. This account is much indebted to the excellent survey in Hammond, HG, pp. 533 ff. I have also drawn on Edson's useful article ‘Early Macedonia’, AM, pp. 17–44.

12. Appian, Syr. 63; Diod. 7.15; Thuc. 2.99.3; Edson, AM, pp. 20–21.

13. Despite some late testimonia (e.g. schol. Clem. Alex. Protrept. 2.8, Justin 7.1.10) which claim that the Argeads simply renamed Edessa Aegae, it seems clear that the two sites, though close, were distinct. See Hammond, AM, pp. 64–5, and Edson, ibid., p. 21 n. 18, who points out that our ancient sources ‘always associate the royal tombs with Aegae, never with Edessa’: cf. AP 7.238; Diod. 19.52.5, 22.12; Pliny HN 4.33; Plut. Pyrrh. 26.12; FGrH no. 73, fr. 1.

14. See A. B. Bosworth, ‘Philip II and Upper Macedonia’, CQ 21ns [65] (1971), 99–100.

15. Strabo 7.7.8, C. 326.

16. Hammond, HG, p. 534.

17. Hdt 5.22; Justin 7.22.

18. Green, The Year of Salamis, 480–479 B.C. (1970), pp. 258–60.

19. Demosth. 23.200; [Demosth.] 12.21, cf. Hdt 8.121.2, and Edson, AM, p. 26, with nn. 50–53.

20. Edson, AM, pp. 26–9.

21. Plato Gorg. 471; Athen. 5.217d; Aelian VH 12.43, 8.9; Arist. Pol. 5.811–12, 1311b.

22. Edson, AM, pp. 34–5 and reff. there cited.

23. Aelian VH 7.12.

24. Hdt 5.22; Thuc. 2.99.3, 4.124.1; Paus. 7.25.6; Pindar frs. 120–21 (Snell); Bacchylides 20B (Snell).

25. SEG 10.138; Andoc. 2.11.

26. AM, pp. 30–31. For the reforms in general see Harpocration and the Suda s.v. πεζεταῖροι, citing Anaximenes of Lampsacus.

27. Thuc. 2.100.2.

28. Archelaus' attachment to Greek intellectuals: Dio Chrys. 13.30. Zeuxis: Aelian VH 14.17, cf. Athen. 8.345d, Plut. Moral. 177B. Evidence for the ‘Olympian’ festival at Dium collected in W. Baege, De Macedonum Sacris (Halle, 1913), pp. 10–12. Agathon: Aelian VH 13.4, 2.21; cf. Aristoph. Thesmoph. 100–130, 191, and passim, also Plato Protag. 156b. Euripides: AP 7.51.4, Aelian VH 13.4. Socrates' refusal: Arist. Rhet. 2.23.8, 1398a; Seneca De Benef. 5.6.6; DL 2.25.

29. Arist. Pol. 1324b; Athen. 18a.

30. For a vivid (and probably not much exaggerated) vignette of Macedonian court life see Theopompus ap. Polyb. 8.9.6–13, and the same writer cited by Athenaeus, 4.167a–c; cf. Demosth. Olynth. 2.18–19.

31. On this episode see now A. B. Bosworth, CQ 21ns [65] (1971), 100–101 with n. 7.

32. Justin 7.4.7–8, 7.5.5. The testimonia for this entire period are collected in F. Geyer, Makedonien bis zur Thronbesteigung Philipps II, Historische Zeitschrift, Beiheft 19 (Munich/Berlin, 1930), ch. 5, pp. 105–39.

33. Diod. 15.71.1. It is possible that Ptolemy was the son of an Amyntas; the name was common enough in Macedonia (see e.g. Berve APG, vol. II, nos. 56–65).

34. Aeschin. De Fals. Leg. 29; Plut. Pelop. 26–7: Marsyas ap. Athen. 14.629d; Justin 7.5.1–3; Diod. 15.60–61, 67, 71, 77, 16.2 (with n. 2 in Loeb edn, pp. 236–7). Our sources are highly confused. One says that Philip was taken as a hostage by the Illyrians after a battle with Amyntas; most agree that he was ransomed by Alexander II and then sent to Thebes. But this makes little sense. The present version depends largely on Aeschines, De Fals. Leg. 26 ff., and is that accepted by most modern historians.

35. M. Cary, CAH, vol. VI, p. 82.

36. QC 6.8.25; cf. Tarn, vol. II, p. 138, n. 1, and Edson, AM, p. 32.

37. Hammond, HG, p. 535.

38. Tarn, vol. II, p. 141.

39. Thuc. 2.100; Xen. Hell. 5.2.39; cf. Milns, p. 46, Fuller, p. 47, n. 1, Hammond, HG, p. 536, n. 1, and Snodgrass, pp. 119–20.

40. Other candidates include Alexander II and Archelaus; but the first had too brief a reign to carry out any lasting military reforms, while the second is only introduced by means of textual emendation. See Edson, AM, p. 31, n. 80.

41. Snodgrass, pp. 118–19.

42. Carystius ap. Athen. 11.506e–f, 508d–e.

43. Diod. 16.2–3; Polyaenus 4.2.1, 10; Aelian VH 14.48; Tarn. vol. II, pp. 135 ff.

44. Tod II, nos. 143, 147, 148.

45. Even so moderate and generally conservative a historian as Hammond can say of Athens at this period that ‘her methods in diplomacy and war were comparable to those of pirates’ (p. 503). For Timotheus' activities see Diod. 15.81.6; Isocr. 15.108 ff.; Demosth. C. Aristocr. 150 ff.; Tod, II, no. 143. The Antidosis of Isocrates, here cited, is especially revealing.

46. Aeschin. De Fals. Leg. 29–30.

47. Diod. 16.2.4–6.

48. Diod. 16.3.4.

49. Diod. 16.3.5–6; Demosth. C. Aristocr. 121.

50. Polyaenus Strat. 4.10.1.

51. Diod. 16.4.3–7; Justin 7.6.7; Front. Strat. 2.32; Polyaenus Strat. 4.2.17; cf. Beloch, GG², III, i, p. 226 and n. 2, Hammond, HG, p. 538 (an excellent tactical account).

52. cf. Burn, AG, pp. 34–5.

53. cf. Plut. Alex. 3.4–5, Justin 12.16.6.

54. For an excellent account of this aspect of Philip's reign see now Harry J. Dell, ‘The Western frontier of the Macedonian monarchy’, AM, pp. 115–26, esp. 118–19, 121–2, with reff. there cited. Our main sources are Demosth.Olynth. 1.13, 23, Phil. 1.48; Justin 8.3.7–8; Diod. 16.69.7.

55. For Audata, Phila and Philinna see Satyrus ap. Athen. 13.557c–e The whole passage repays close study, since it both indicates the chronological order of Philip's marriages, and makes a clear distinction between those women he married, and those he did not (particularly the two Thessalians, Philinna and Nicesipolis, by whom he merely had offspring). This distinction is not always observed by modern scholars: see e.g. G. T. Griffith, CQ 20ns [64] (1970), 70 with n. 1. The passage also explains why Justin, for instance, refers to Philinna (13.2.11) as a scortum (whore). We have no reason to query his description of her elsewhere (9.8.2) as a saltatrix, or dancing-girl.

56. E. Badian, Phoenix 17 (1963), 244. He also quotes that delightful Latin hexameter applied to the Habsburg dynasty in its heyday: Bella gerant alii: tu, felix Austria, nube (‘Leave others to make war, while you, lucky Austria, marry’).

57. Diod. 16.4.1–2; Justin 7.6.6–9; Beloch, GG², III, ii, pp. 68 ff.; Tod, II, p. 146.

58. Demosth. In Leptin. 33; Strabo 7.4.6 (C. 311); Tod, II, no. 151. The price of grain had doubled since 393. In 357 Athens imported no less than 2,100,000 medimni (the medimnus was about a bushel and a half) from Leucon, ruler over the Cimmerian Bosporus. For special privileges granted to Leucon and his sons see Tod, II, no. 167. Similar considerations at this time prompted an Athenian expedition to keep the Thebans out of Euboea: Demosth.Olynth. 1.8, Chers. 74; Tod, II, nos. 153, 154.

59. Isocr. Phil. 2; Aeschin. De Fals. Leg. 21, 70, 72, In Ctesiph. 54; IG, ii², 127.

60. Diod. 16.8.3–4; Tod, II, no. 158.

61. Plut. Alex. 2.1–6, 9.3–4; Arrian 7.12.6–7. The marriage may also have had political motivations. See Bosworth, op. cit., p. 102, for the special ties between Epirus and Upper Macedonia: ‘The two powers to the east and west of the Pindus range were now allied in marriage, and any progeny would be hybrid – so Attalus was to remark later.’

62. Diod. 16.3.7, 16.8.6–7, 16.53.3; Theopompus ap. Athen. 4.167a; Tod, II, p. 170; Bellinger, pp. 35–6; Griffith, GR, p. 127.

63. Plut. Moral. 177C2.

64. cf. Hammond, HG, pp. 497–8, a vigorous and just condemnation of Spartan methods. For Philip's attitude see, e.g., Plut. Moral. 177C–D4.

a The annually elected Board of Generals [strategoi] was in effect a kind of civil and military cabinet.

Chapter 2

1. Plut. Alex. 3.1–4; Cicero Nat. Deorum 2.27, 2.69.

2. e.g. Plutarch, who despite his use of contemporary sources was dominated by the urge to present Alexander as a type-figure, the ‘spirited’ man ruled by passion and ambition. See in particular Plutarch's two early essays On the Fortune or the Virtue of Alexander, Moral. 326D–333C, 333C–345B, together with the perceptive comments of A. E. Wardman, CQ ns5 (1955), 96 ff., E. Badian, Historia 7 (1958), 436 f., and J. R. Hamilton, GR, p. 123, PA, pp. xxxviii ff. On the subject of unconscious bias in historians of Alexander, see above, pp. 480 ff.

3. cf. S. K. Eddv, The King is Dead, pp. 11–12, 23 ff., 65–9; and below, pp. 314–15.

4. Hamilton, GR, pp. 123–4.

5. Plut. Alex. 5.1–3; Moral. 342B–C; Diod. 16.52.3, cf. QC 6.5.2, and Hammond, HG, p. 548. cf. Polyt. 12.22.

6. For Philip's siege and capture of Olynthus see Demosthenes' three Olynthian orations, passim; Diod. 6.53.2–3, 55 passim; Justin 7.4, 8.3. For Alexander of Epirus (‘the Molossian’), see Demosth. Olynth. 1.13; Paus. 1.11.3; Justin 8.6.5.

7. Olynth. 1.13.

8. Theopompus ap. Polyb. 8.9.6–13 and Athen. 4.167a–c; Demosth. Olynth. 2.17–19; cf. Parke, Greek Mercenaries, p. 160.

9. For their attitude see, e.g., Theophrastus ap. Athen. 10.435a.

10. Tarn, vol. II, p. 326.

11. See, e.g., Isocrates, Philippus, 32–4, 111–20.

12. Iliad 3.179 and 6.208; the latter line is quoted, very tellingly, by P. A. Brunt in GR, p. 208. For Alexander's pedigree see Plut. Alex. 2.1; Diod. 17.1.5. The anecdote about achievement: Plut. Moral. 179D1.

13. Arrian 4.9.3; Plut. Alex. 5.4–5, 7.1.22.5, 25.4–5.

14. Plut. Alex. 6.1; Arrian 5.19.5; Pliny NH 8.154; cf. A. R. Anderson, AJPh 51 (1930), 1 ff. For Philip's celebration of games at Dium in 347 see Demosth. Fals. Leg. 192–5. In assessing the Bucephalas story I am much indebted to the expert advice of Major E. N. Barker, M.C., general manager of the Lazarina Stud Farm at Trikkala in Thessaly. For the reputation of Thessalian horses in antiquity see Hamilton, PA, p. 15 and reff. there cited. We have no instance on record of a higher price being obtained for any horse in antiquity. The nearest is the 100,000 sesterces (about 4 talents) paid by Dolabella: see Aul. Gell. NA 3.9.

15. This anecdote is related at length and in circumstantial detail by Plutarch, Alex. 6 passim. I have done little more than paraphrase it. For Demaratus' role in the affair see Diod. 17.76.6, and Chares of Mytilene ap. Aul. Gell. NA5.2. Other sources in Berve, no. 253, p. 133.

16. Aeschines In Timarch. 166–9; Plut. Per. 1.5.

17. Diod. 16.53.2–3, 55 passim; Justin 7.4, 8.3; Demosth. Fals. Leg. 233, 237, 264 ff.; Tod, II, no. 166; Aeschines Fals. Leg. 18–19.

18. The main sources are the rival speeches On the False Embassy composed by Demosthenes and Aeschines. For the general reader, the Loeb editions of both works can be recommended; each has an excellent introduction.

19. The preserved speeches of Demosthenes, Aeschines, Hypereides and others illustrate this outburst of vindictive litigation in some detail. For Philocrates' impeachment see Demosth. Fals. Leg. 114–16, 145–6. For Aeschines' trial see the speeches cited in n. 18, passim.

20. Diod. 16.59.3–4, 60 passim; Justin 8.4.12–8.5.6; Tod, II, no. 172; Demosth. Fals. Leg. 111–12, Peace 22, Philip 3.32.

21. Justin 8.2.1; Isocr. 5.2.0; Demosth. 1.21–2; cf. Griffith, CQ ns20 [64] (1970) 73 and n. 6, cf. 74 ff. Most historians place this appointment now, in 344.

22. On Nicesipolis and her daughter see Plut. Moral. 141B23, 178F22; Satyrus ap. Athen. 13.5573, Paus. 9.7.3, 8.7.7; Diod. 19.52; Strabo 7 fr. 24; Steph. Byz. s.v. θεσσαλονίκη.

23. On the Peace of Antalcidas see Norlin's analysis in the Loeb edn of Isocrates, vol. I, pp. xxv, 116–17, which the non-specialist will find clearer and more succinct than the accounts given in most standard histories.

24. Diod. 15.9.19; cf. Isocr. Paneg. 15.

25. On the Peace: see esp. §§29, 34, 103, 120; and Areopag. 4.

26. Paneg. 182; Archidamus, passim; cf. Norlin, Loeb edn, vol. I, p. xl, with note.

27. Paneg. 140–43, 187–8, 166–8; Philip 99–105, 132–6, 95–8, 120–23.

28. Philip 127.

29. e.g. the settling of Greek mercenaries by Alexander in the cities of Asia (§§122–3) and the articles accepted by the League of Corinth in 337 (see p. 94).

30. Isocrates Philip 101–2; cf. Olmstead, pp. 424–9.

31. Diod. 16.44–50 passim; Demosth. Phil. 4.33–5, Ep. ad Phil. 6–7; Arrian 2.14.2; cf. Olmstead, pp. 436–7, 486, Cloché, Philippe II, p. 274. I do not accept the theory that Artaxerxes offered Philip a free hand in dealing withThrace as a quid pro quo for his non-intervention; there is no evidence that Persia exercised any effective control in the Thraceward regions during this period.

32. cf. Jaeger, Aristotle, p. 119.

33. Jaeger, ibid., pp. 105 ff.; A.-H. Chroust, Historia 15 (1966), 189, and 21 (1972) 170 ff.; GR 14 (1967) 39–44.

34. Strabo 13.1.57; Diog. Laert. 5.1.3–4; Jaeger, ibid., pp. 112 ff., 288–90.

35. Plut. Alex. 7.1–2.

36. Plut. Alex. 4.1–3; Aelian VH 12.14; Plut. Moral. 53D, 179D, 331B; Ps-Call. 1.13; Jul. Val. 1.7; Bieber, Portraits, pp. 24–5, pl. v. The characteristic poise of Alexander's head has been variously ascribed to congenital tortocollosis, compensation for imperfect vision in one eye, and plain affectation. For the girlish impression given by the statue-portraits cf. J. H. Jongkees, Bull. Ver. Ant. Beschaving 29 (1954), 32–3, and R. A. Lunsingh-Scheurleer, ibid., 40 (1965), 80–83.

37. Fredricksmeyer, CPh 56 (1961), 162–3.

38. For Marsyas see the Suda s.v. Μαρσύας Περιάνδρου Πελλαῖος, and Berve APG no. 489, pp. 247–8.

39. Plut. Moral. 178E–F 22; cf. Alex. 7.4.

40. e.g. Burn, pp. 16–17; Milns, pp. 19–20; cf. Philip Slater, The Glory of Hera, pp. 98, n. 9, 132.

41. Plut. Alex. 4, Moral. 179D, 331B.

42. Plut. Alex. 7.4–5; Aul. Gell. NA 20.5.

43. Aristotle Pol. 1284a–b, cf. 1288a 28 ff.; cf. Balsdon, MP, pp. 185–6. For the pre-eminent man as god, cf. Pol. 1253a 4–5, 25–9; and see also Jaeger, Aristotle, pp. 288–90.

44. Slavery natural: Pol. 1252a 32, 1254b 20, 1253b 32, 1278b 33. Persians (‘barbarians’) as slaves by nature: Pol. 1252b 8; Eur. IA 1400, cf. Ehrenberg, Alexander and the Greeks, pp. 89–90, and for the advice to Alexander, Aristotle fr. 658 Rose.

45. Didymus on Demosth. 5.64, 6.50 [Jacoby FGrH 2b, p. 640]; Diod. 16.52.5; Polyaenus 6.48; Ps-Arist. Oecon. 2.2.28; Demosth. Phil. 4.31–3. It is not necessary to assume, with Chroust, Historia 21 (1972) 175, that Philip's prime motive for recalling Aristotle in 343/2 was the protection of an agent whose cover was in danger of being blown, rather than the genuine need to find a highly qualified tutor for his son.

46. Ehrenberg, Alexander and the Greeks, p. 98, Hamilton, GR, p. 119.

47. Tarn, CAH, vol. VI, p. 357, repeated AG, vol. I, p. 8.

48. Eur. IA 1400; Plato Rep. 470C–471A; Isocr. Paneg. 3, 184, Panath. 163; Arist. Pol. 1256b 25.

49. Eudem. Ethics 1215b 35 (cf. Jaeger, pp. 253–5); Plut. Alex. 8.3.

50. Plut. Alex. 22, Moral. 65F, 717F.

51. Plut. Alex. 8.1.

52. See below, pp. 377 ff. For Alexander's interest in eristics see the excellent article by Philip Merlan, Historia 3 (1954/5), 60 ff., and esp. p. 76 for the comment here cited.

53. Merlan, ibid., pp. 60–63.

54. Demosth. Chers. 2; Diod. 16.71; Satyrus ap. Athen. 13.557b–e; cf. CAH, vol. VI, p. 251.

55. Demosth. Halonn. 16, Chers. 43–5, repeated in Phil. 4, 15–16.

56. Demosth. Chers. 6, 24–7; Isocr. Ep. Phil. 2 passim.

57. Demosth. Chers. 3, 11–13, Phil. 3, 9, 18, 25–7, and passim.

58. Demosth. Halonn. 16, De Cor. 87.

59. Demosth. Phil. 3.70–72, Phil. 4.52–3, De Cor. 87.

60. Diod. 16.72.1; Justin 8.6.4–8; Demosth. Halonn. 32; Tod. II, nos. 173–4.

61. Demosth. Phil. Ep. 6; [Plut.] X Orat. 847F–848A; cf. Demosth. De Cor. 76–7.

a It has recently been argued, by Chroust, that he in fact left Athens as early as 348, before Plato's death, and because of anti-Macedonian feeling rather than through frustrated philosophical ambitions; further, that his subsequent residence with Hermeias, and on Mytilene, was dictated not so much by scientific curiosity as by Philip's political requirements. While the political element should not be minimized, this seems a needlessly extreme position.

Chapter 3

1. Theophrastus ap. Athen. 10.435a. The earliest known portrait of Alexander is by no means inconsistent with this anecdote; see Bieber, pp. 24–5.

2. Diod. 16.74.2–76.4; Plut. Alex. 9.1 (cf. Hamilton, PA, pp. 22–3).

3. Plut. Moral. 178B 16–17 = 806B; Val. Max. 7.2.ext.§10.

4. Demosth. De Cor. 73, 76–7; Ep. Phil. 6; Diod. 16.76.4–77.2; Justin 9.1; Plut. Phoc. 14.

5. Demosth. De Cor. 145 ff.; Justin 9.2–3 passim; Plut. Moral. 174F, 331B, 334A.

6. He had already bribed one man, unsuccessfully, to set fire to the Piraeus dockyards: see Demosth. De Cor. 132.

7. Demosth. De Cor. 169 ff.; Plut. Demosth. 18; Diod. 16.84.2–5; cf. Grote, HG, vol. XI, pp. 287 ff.

8. The Panathenaicus, published during the crisis, compares Philip to Agamemnon before Troy, and contains several very cool allusions to Thebes, Sparta, and Argos. See esp. §§74–83, 91 ff., 121 ff.

9. A small squadron under Phocion did, in fact, sail to the North Aegean and attack Macedonian shipping there; but it was negligible as a threat, and in any case soon returned to Athens. See Plut. Phoc. 14.8, 16.1.

10. Aeschin. De Fals. Leg. 148; Plut. Demosth. 18.3; Polyaenus 4.2.8.

11. For the following account of Chaeronea I am much indebted to the masterly analysis by N. G. L. Hammond, ‘The two battles of Chaeronea’, Klio 31 (1938), 186–218, together with his more succinct account in HG, pp. 567–70. For the relative size of the armies, cf. Diod. 16.85.7 with Justin 9.3.9.

12. Plut. Demosth. 18.4, 20.1, Phoc. 16.1–3, cf. Hammond, HG, p. 567. The date is most often given as 2 August or 1 September (Metageitnion 7); I follow Plut. Camill. 19.5, which dates the battle Metageitnion 9. A new moon was visible at Athens on 26/7 July (Bickermann, Chronology, p. 119; cf. C. B. Welles, Loeb Diodorus, vol. VIII, pp. 78–9, n. 1), so 4 August must be considered the most likely date.

13. See on this the analysis by Polyaenus, 4.2.7.

14. Diod. 16.86.1–5; Plut. Alex. 9.2, Demosth. 20–21, Moral. 845F; Polyaenus 4.2.2, 4.2.7–8; Hammond ut supr. n. 75 passim; W. K. Pritchett, ‘Notes on Chaeronea’, AJA, 62 (1958), 307–11, with pls. 80–81.

15. Diod. 16.86.6–87 passim; Plut. Demosth. 20.3, Moral. 715C, 849A.

16. Hypereides fr. B 18 [ = MAO II, pp. 575–7, cf. pp. 364–5]; Lycurg. In Leocr. 16; Demosth. De Cor. 195, 248; Aeschin. De Fals. Leg. 159; [Plut.] Vit. X Orat. 848, 849A, 851–2.

17. Quintil. Inst. Orat. 2.17.2; Deinarch. In Demosth. 104; Sext. Emp. Adv. Math. 2.16; Suda s.v. Δημάδης; Plut. Phoc. 1; Aelian VH 5.12; Demades, Twelve Years frr. 29, 51; cf. Pierre Lévêque, The Greek Adventure, pp. 326–7, also Pytheas ap. Athen. 2.44a and Aul. Gell. NA 11.10.

18. Diod. 16.87; Justin 9.4; Demades, Twelve Years frr. 9–10; Aelian VH 6.1; Plut. Moral. 177E–F, Demosth. 10, 13, Phoc. 96; Hypereides Eux. 16–17 (cols. 12–13); Demosth. De Cor. 285; Theopompus ap. Athen. 10.435b–c.

19. For Philip's treatment of Thebes see Diod. 16.87–8; Arrian 1.7.11; Justin 9.4.6–10; Paus. 9.1.8, 9.37.8, 4.27.10. His treatment of Greek cities generally: Plut. Moral. 177C–D4, cf. Burn, AG, p. 42, who cites the parallel modern aphorism that ‘you can do almost anything with bayonets except sit on them.’

20. Paus. 5.20.9–10; cf. Bieber, p. 19, and literature there cited.

21. See Badian, Phoenix 17 (1963), 246–7 and n. 16, with reff. there cited; Diod. 16.92.5, and C. B. Welles ad loc. (Loeb edn, vol. VIII, p. 101, n. 3): ‘The implication of this claim on Philip's part was that he was in some fashion the equal of the Twelve and entitled like them to worship.’ The episode involving the Twelve Gods is discussed more fully on p. 104. For Lysander see Plut. Lys. 18; Paus. 6.3.14–15; Athen. 15.696; Hesychius s.v. Λυσάνδρια. For the Archilocheum see F. Lasserre and A. Bonnard,Archiloque (Paris, 1958), pp. lxxviii ff. For Philip's contempt of divine pretensions in others, as exemplified by his dealings with Menecrates, the self-styled ‘Zeus-physician’, see Hegesander ap. Athen. 7.289c–e; Aelian VH 12.51.

22. Isocrates, Epist. 3, §5. For the Ephesus incident see p. 98 and n. 53.

23. Diod. 17.5.3–4; cf. Olmstead, pp. 489–90.

24. Justin 9.4.5; Polyb. 5.10; Plut. Demosth. 22; Hypereides fr.B 19.2–5 (cols. 77–80).

25. Paus. 1.9.4; Clem. Alex. Protrept. 4.54.5; Isocr. Epist. 3.3; Tod, II, no. 176; Demosth. De Cor. 285 ff. (Demosthenes quotes a different and longer epitaph, which he says was inscribed on the monument at public expense.) For that cited here see Anth. Pal.7.245.

26. Plut. Moral. 471E, cf. 331B, 1126D. The sprinter's name is wrongly given as Crison, who flourished in the 440s (unless this is another man of the same name, perhaps called after his great predecessor); such a slip does not necessarily invalidate the anecdote itself.

27. Plut. Moral. 217F, 233E 29, 760A–B; Paus. 8.7.4; Diod. 17.3; cf. Roebuck, CPh 43 (1948), 73–92, Wilcken, p. 41, Burn AG, pp. 43–4. Wilcken argues that any garrisons which Philip imposed had league sanction, but this is no more than to say that the league tactfully endorsed the king's wishes.

28. E. Badian, Hermes 95 (1967), 172. For the Spartan abstention see Plut. Moral. 240A. Phocion attempted to make Athens follow Sparta's example, but was overruled by Demades: Plut. Phoc. 16.4.

29. This account of the league, and of the peace conference at Corinth, necessarily simplifies — perhaps oversimplifies — an immensely complex and controversial topic. The main source is a fragmentary inscription recording the terms of the treaty (Tod, II, no. 177, pp. 224–31). Literary sources are scanty and misleading: Diod. 16.89.1–3; Justin 9.5. The best modern treatment is still Wilcken's (pp. 42 ff.); see also Borza's notes ad loc., pp. 328–9, with more recent bibliography. Few scholars would probably now endorse J. A. O. Larsen's verdict, CPh 39 (1944) 160, that the league as organized by Philip ‘must be ranked among the great achievements of statesmanship in the world's history’, but it does offer ample evidence for his shrewdness and skill in political manoeuvring.

30. Diod. 17.22.5; cf. F. Mitchel, GR, p. 190.

31. Diod. 16.89.3.

32. Diod. 16.93.9; 17.2.4. For Attalus' marriage see QC 6.19.17; cf. Badian, Phoenix 17 (1963), 245.

33. For Philip's divorce of Olympias, and his declaration that Alexander was illegitimate, see Justin, 11.11.3–5.

34. See Bosworth, CQ ns21 (1971), 102, with n. 2. While realizing the bad effects such a match would inevitably have on the out-kingdoms, he side-steps any discussion of the true motives which led Philip to contract it in the first place.

35. Aelian, VH 12.43; cf. above, pp. 12, 22.

36. Satyrus ap. Athen. 13.557d–e; Plut. Alex. 9.3–7; Justin 9.5.9, 9.7.3–4; Ps-Callisth. 1.20–22; Jul. Val. 26–8. Cleopatra's maiden name before her marriage seems to have been Eurydice; see Arrian, Succ. 22.3; Justin 9.7.3.

37. Meda, daughter of King Cothelas of the Getae; see Satyrus ap. Athen. 13.557d, and above, p. 62.

38. For these various views see, e.g., Milns, p. 27, Badian ut supra, p. 244, Bosworth loc. cit., and Hammond, HG, p. 573. Burn, p. 44, seems to accept the tradition that Philip was merely suffering from acute infatuation.

39. Plut. Alex. 9.3. Note also Alexander's implicit claims to actual royalty in his refusal to run except against kings, and perhaps in his application to Xenocrates for rules of royal conduct (see above, p. 85).

40. QC 8.1.23.

41. Demosth. De Cor. 67.

42. Homer, Iliad 1.120.

43. Plut. Alex. 9.3.

44. Bieber, p. 23, and figs. 3–4, with earlier literature there cited.

45. Wilcken, pp. 47–9; Hammond, HG, p. 572, with reff. The idea of a ‘sacred war’ against Persia was not new: Pericles had suggested it long before, when moving his so-called ‘Congress Decree’: Plut. Per. 17.

46. See the admirable analysis by Milns, pp. 14–15. For the declaration of war by the league see Diod. 16.89.1–3; Justin 9.5.1–7; Plut. Phoc. 16.4; Demosth. De Cor. 10.

47. See Olmstead, pp. 491–2, with reff.

48. Satyrus ap. Athen. 13.557e; cf. Justin 9.7.12. This reconstruction of events assumes that Cleopatra bore two children before Philip's death: a daughter, Europa, and a son, Caranus. Since our various sources never mention both children together, many scholars assume that only one in fact existed (see, e.g., Tarn, vol. II, pp. 260 ff., who uses much special pleading to argue Caranus out of existence) and place Philip's marriage to Cleopatra later, in the spring or summer of 337. This thesis does not affect my main conclusions. On the other hand, it makes the recall of Alexander in 337 considerably harder to explain.

49. Justin 9.7.7.

50. Plut. Moral. 179C 30, cf. Alex. 9.6. For the difficulty experienced by Demaratus in persuading Alexander to come back see Justin 9.7.6.

51. Polyaenus 4.2.6.

52. Justin 9.7.6–7; Plut. Moral. 818B–C.

53. Justin 9.5.8; Diod. 16.91.2, 17.2.4, 17.7.1–2; Polyaenus 4.4.4; Arrian 1.17.11; Tod, II, no. 192, and commentary, p. 265; cf. Badian, Stud. Ehrent., pp. 40–41 and Brunt, JHS 83 (1963), 34–5. For Erythrae see SIG³ 284 with Dittenberger's notes ad loc.

54. For fourth-century actors as diplomats see A. W. Pickard-Cambridge, The Dramatic Festivals of Athens (1953), p. 287. They travelled freely, and their status seems to have given them some sort of diplomatic immunity, which made them ideal agents. Thessalus was the head of a troupe which gained prizes at Athens in 347 and 340; he also accompanied Alexander's expedition, performing in Tyre, and probably also in Egypt (Arrian 3.1.4). cf. Berve,APG, II, p. 180, no. 371, and Hamilton, PA, p. 25.

55. The text of Plutarch is uncertain; but this would seem to be the best interpretation of a vexed passage (10.3). See Hamilton, PA, pp. 25–6 ad loc.

56. On the Pixodarus affair see Plut. Alex. 10.1–3; cf. Strabo 14.2.17, C. 656–7; Arrian 3.6.5; Badian, Phoenix 17 (1963), 245–6; Hamilton, PA, pp. 25–7. On Ptolemy's parentage (perhaps the claim that he was Philip's son is no more than propaganda put out to justify his subsequent position as King of Egypt) see QC 9.8.22; Paus. 1.6.2. His mother was said to have been one of Philip's concubines.

57. Polyaenus 8.60; Justin 11.11.3–5.

58. Diod. 17.5–6; cf. Olmstead, p. 490.

59. One may, perhaps, profitably compare this occasion with the recent (1971) junketings laid on by the Shah of Persia at Persepolis.

60. Diod. 16.91.4–6; Justin 9.6.1–3.

61. Diod. 17.2.3; Justin 11.2.3; Paus. 8.7.7. For Caranus as founder of the Argead dynasty see Diod. 7.15.1–3; Plut. Alex. 2.1; Justin 7.1.7–12, 33.2.6, Vell. Pat. 1.6.5. A different version is found in Herodotus (8.137-9, andThucydides (2.100), who reckon Perdiccas I as the first king of the line. It has been argued (e.g. by Tarn, vol. II, pp. 260 ff.) that the ‘Caranus-genealogy’ was mere fourth-century propaganda, but this is pure speculation. Philip would surely have taken an existing tradition, however mythical, to make his point rather than manufacture a brand-new piece of fiction for the occasion.

62. Milns, p. 31.

63. It is generally assumed — e.g. by Badian, Phoenix 17 (1963), 249, and Hamilton, PA, p. 28 — that Olympias remained in Epirus until after the wedding, and therefore could have played no direct part in the plot against Philip'slife. This is hard to credit when we consider who was, getting married, and it is directly contradicted by the evidence of Justin 9.6.8–10, and Plut. Alex. 10.4.

64. Diod. 16.92.3–4.

65. On the basis of a highly fragmentary papyrus (P. Oxy. 1798 = FGrH 148) it has recently been argued by Bosworth, CQ ns21 (1971), 93 ff., that Pausanias was handed over for execution to the Macedonian army. He is not in fact named in this text, and the person referred to could equally well be a brother of Alexander the Lyncestian (cf. Arrian 1.25.1–2; QG 7.1.6–7).

66. Badian, Phoenix 17 (1963), 244 ff., Milns, pp. 29–31.

67. Justin, 9.6.5, says that he was primis pubertatis annis at the time, i.e. a young adolescent; and the last recorded campaign which Philip fought against the Illyrians (there must have been many more) had been in 344/3 (Diod. 16.69.7). On this somewhat flimsy evidence the whole episode is normally placed in 344, i.e. eight years before Philip's murder. This is to strain credulity well past breaking-point — and unnecessarily so, since both Plutarch(Alex. 10.4) and Diodorus (16.93.8–9) make it quite clear that the event was of recent occurrence. It seems more likely that the battle with the Illyrians was a skirmish provoked by Alexander's activities there in exile (and for that reason perhaps afterwards suppressed), which would date it to 337, just the right period. Justin's phrase can then be treated as mere rhetorical hyperbole. Valerius Maximus (8.14.ext. §4) has a dubious anecdote of Pausaniasasking a philosopher named Hermocles (otherwise unknown: the sculptor commissioned by Seleucus Nicator will hardly fit the bill) what he must do to reap immediate fame, and being told to kill a famous man.

68. Diod. 16.93 passim; Plut. Alex. 10.4; Justin 9.6.4–8; Arist. Pol. 1311b 2.

69. We may note the parallel case of Harmodius and Aristogeiton, the murderers of Peisistratus' son Hipparchus; here, again, homosexual jealousy was neatly harnessed to political ends: see Hdt 5.55–6, 6.109, 123; Thuc. 1.20, 6.5.54–57.

70. Plut. Alex. 10.4; Justin 9.7.8–14.

71. Plut. ibid.; Justin 9.7.3. The Euripides citation is from Medea, 288, where it refers to Creon, Jason, and Creusa. This was not to be the only occasion on which a passage from Euripides was to be associated with murder inAlexander's life: see below, p. 364 and notes ad loc. I do not (as I am quite sure some scholars must have done, or will do in due course) deduce from this parallelism that both instances are mere rhetorical fiction.

72. cf. Diod. 17.2.2, and below, p. 113.

73. By Bosworth, in CQ ns21 (1971), 93–105. Though there is slight evidence (Plut. Moral. 327C) for factions in Macedonia, as well as in Greece at large, causing Alexander some trouble after his accession, Bosworth fails to make out a convincing case for either Amyntas or the Lyncestian brothers having been behind the assassination itself.

74. See Welles's acute remarks in the Loeb Diodorus, vol. VIII, p. 101, n. 2.

75. The use of the plural (Diod. 16.94.4) is suggestive. Pausanias himself needed only one horse; the implication, surely, is that the original plan envisaged several murderers — nor can there be much doubt as to who was involved.

76. For similar interpretations see Milns, p. 31, and Badian, Phoenix 17 (1963), 249.

77. Milns, ibid.

a Little is known of this man except that he was a trusted general and ambassador who served both Philip and Alexander well: see Berve, APG, II, p. 23, no. 47, and Tod, II, no. 180. For his subsequent career see below, pp. 187 ff.

b To be distinguished from Cleopatra-Eurydice, Philip's new wife. One of the more irritating problems for anyone studying Macedonian history is the endless duplication of too few proper names. All too often it is impossible to be certain just which Amyntas or Pausanias (or, indeed, Philip or Alexander) is under discussion at any given time.

c Whose wife (and sister, and successor) Artemisia built the Mausoleum — one of the Seven Wonders of the World — as a sepulchral monument in his memory, and mixed his ashes in her wine daily until her own death two years later.

d Some of the details which follow here are rejected by most modern historians as wildly implausible fiction. But a woman who subsequently committed at least five political murders (including roasting a baby over a brazier), and ordered over a hundred executions, could hardly be called squeamish; and Olympias was never one to hide or restrain her emotions.

Chapter 4

1. This seems to have been the traditional method of confirming the succession: see Berve, APG, II, pp. 46 f.; Badian, Phoenix 17 (1963), 248, citing Ps-Call. 1.26. The smooth take-over implied here has lately been challenged by Bosworth, CQ ns21 (1971), 103 and n. 1; but it gains confirmation both from Diod. 17.2.2 and Justin 11.1.8.

2. By Bosworth, op. cit., pp. 96–7.

3. See J. R. Ellis, ‘The Security of the Macedonian Throne under Philip II’, AM, pp. 68–75, further developed in JHS 91 (1971), 15–24.

4. Darius' supposed offer of 1,000 talents to Alexander, plus help in securing the Macedonian throne for himself (Arrian 1.25.3 ff.: see above, pp. 202–3, even if not a mere fictional libel invented afterwards to justify the Lyncestian's condemnation, hardly proves more than that he was an acceptable usurper — to Darius.

5. See Justin 11.5.1–2, 12.6.14.

6. Arrian 1.25.1–2; QC 6.9.17, 6.10.24, 7.1.6–7; Justin 11.2.1–2, 12.16.4; Diod. 17.2.1; Plut. Alex. 10.4, Moral. 327C.

7. Diod. 17.2.2–3; Justin 11.1.8–10; Arrian 3.6.6; cf. Wilcken, pp. 63–4.

8. Plut. Alex. 11.1, cf. Moral. 327C–D; Diod. 17.3.3–5; Justin 11–1.2–3.

9. Ellis, op. cit., esp. pp. 72–3 and testimony there cited.

10. Aeschines, In Ctesiph. 77. His source was the mercenary general Charidemus: cf. Plut. Demosth. 22.

11. For the relationship see Berve, APG, II, nos. 59 and 144; cf. Justin 11.5.8 for his Asia Minor command.

12. Plut. Demosth. 22–3 passim, Phoc. 16.6 [X Orat.] 847B; Diod. 17.2.3–6, 17.3.2, 17.5.1; Aeschin. In Ctesiph. 77, 160; Justin 11.3.3–4.

13. Aeschin. In Ctesiph. 238; cf. Diod. 17.7.12; Plut. Phoc. 17.1–2. Refusing Greek applications for gold subventions had become second nature to Persian monarchs and their officials: see, e.g., the amusing passage in Aristophanes'Acharnians (98–114), where almost the only intelligible remark the Great King's Eye makes is: ‘No getty goldy, nincompoop lawny [Ionian]’.

14. Plut. Alex. 11.2, cf. Moral. 327C.

15. Diod. 17.4.1–2; Justin 11.2.4, 11.3.1–2; Polyaenus 4.3.23; cf. Fuller, p. 82.

16. Diod. 17.4.3; Aeschin. In Ctesiph. 160–61.

17. Diod. 17.4.2–7; Plut. Demosth. 23.2–3, Moral. 327D; cf. Wilcken, p. 65, Olmstead, p. 495.

18. Diod. 17.5.1–2; Plut. Demosth. 23.2; QC 7.1.3, 8.7.5; Justin 11.5.1; Arrian 1.12.7, 1.17.9; cf. Badian, Phoenix 17 (1963), 249–50, Stud. Ehrenb., pp. 41–3, Berve, APG, II, no. 59, pp. 29–30. I can see no grounds for Badian's statement that the execution of Attalus took place after the fall of Thebes.

19. On this important distinction see Wilcken, p. 65.

20. Megarian offer of citizenship: Plut. Moral. 826C–D. Spartan abstention: Arrian 1.1.2. Tyrannies in Achaea and Messenia: Demades, Twelve Years, 4–7, 10–11; Paus. 7.27.7.

21. See Ps-Demosth. On the Treaty with Alexander, passim, esp. §§10, 15, 16, 19–20, 26. Ironically enough, we only know most of the terms of the treaty because Macedonia was afterwards accused of breaking them.

22. For the league's meeting at Corinth see, in general, Diod. 17.4.9; Arrian 1.1.1–3; Plut. Alex. 14.1–3; Justin 11.2.5; cf. Hamilton, PA, pp. 33–4, Wilcken, pp. 65–6. The schedule of military obligations: Tod, II, no. 183, with commentary, pp. 240–41; Plut.Moral, [Vit. X Oral.] 847C. The mission from Ephesus: Plut. Moral. 1126D.

23. Plut. Alex. 14.1–3, Moral. 331F, 605D, 782A; Diog. Laert. 6.32; cf, Berve, APG, II, p. 417, n. 3. The story was extremely popular in antiquity; Berve (loc. cit.) has collected no less than twenty-two references. Modern scholars, for reasons not entirely clear to me, regard it as fiction, seemingly on the grounds that it is designed to illustrate character. Why such anecdotes should automatically be taken as unhistorical is hard to see; even on the law of averages one would expect some of them to have a basis in fact.

24. Plut. Alex. 14.4; Diod. 17.93.4; cf. Tarn, vol. II, pp. 338 ff., who argues — rightly, in my opinion — for the authenticity of the anecdote; also Hamilton, PA, pp. 34–5. For the donation to the temple see SIG 251H.

25. For what follows I am much indebted to the excellent strategic analysis by Fuller, pp. 219–26. The only detailed source is Arrian, 1.1.4–1.6.11, passim; cf. the brief notices given by Diod. 17.8.1–2; Plut. Alex. 11.3, Moral. 327A; and the modern discussions of Tarn, vol. I, pp. 5–6, Burn, pp. 55–9, Wilcken, pp. 66–70, and Milns, pp. 35–8.

26. It is impossible to identify this island with any certainty. All we know is that Strabo's identification (7.3.15, C. 305) is undoubtedly wrong, since he places it 120 stades (= 15 miles) from the mouth of the Danube; it must have been at least 100 miles further upstream. Alexander's opponents on the farther bank were the Getae, and two other countries (those of the Sauromatae and the Scythians) lay between them and the sea: cf. Arrian 1.3.2 – though he is describing the Danube tribes as they were in his own day. There may well have been several islands with the same name. Whether Alexander did in fact cross by Darius' route (see Hdt 4.90, with the note by How and Wells, vol. I, p. 334, and H. L. Jones's note on Strabo, Loeb edn, vol. III, pp. 216–17) seems highly doubtful; he had no time to waste on so vast a detour, and Arrian's text (1.2–3, passim) suggests a march of no more than five or six days at the most from the Shipka to the Danube. Note also that the current is said to flow swiftly round Peuce because of the narrows, which would not be the case near the delta. Lastly, Darius' opponents were not the Getae, but the Scythians: in his case Strabo's identification may well be right.

27. Ehrenberg, Alexander and the Greeks, p. 60. The whole chapter, ‘Pothos’ (ibid., pp. 52–61) is full of valuable psychological insights. It is reprinted complete in Griffith, MP, pp. 74–83. I am not ignoring the possibility that on occasion Alexander's pothosmay simply have been an excuse for motives which he preferred to keep private.

28. Arrian 1.4.7–8; Strabo 7.3.8, C. 301–2. Tarn, vol. I, pp. 5–6, points out that the reference to the sky falling is an allusion to the form of oath used by the Celts (and by the Irish Gaels a millennium later): ‘We will keep faith unless the sky fall and crush us or the earth open and swallow us or the sea rise and overwhelm us.’

29. Arrian, 1.5.2, is quite specific on this point. The earliest brigading of Macedonians and Orientals seems to have begun immediately after Issus: see Griffith, JHS 83 (1963), 69. But we have here an interesting pointer in the same direction; and, be it noted, in the Guards Brigade (hypaspistae) rather than the cavalry, though as Griffith remarks (ibid., p. 74), ‘the horsemen of the Companions might be expected to be a little more sympathetic towards [Alexander's] political plans.’ With the Agrianians, of course, the object was more purely military.

30. Strabo 7.5.11, C. 317–18.

31. As Fuller (p. 225, n. 3) acutely remarks, ‘an unexpected and tremendous shout can at times be as effective as a volley of musketry’. He compares Alexander's ruse with a similar incident at the storming of the Alamo in 1836.Marius employed the same device during his Numidian campaign: Sallust, Bell. Iug. 99.

32. Arrian 1.5.5–1.6.9, passim.

33. cf. Ellis, AM, pp. 72–5.

34. Demades, Twelve Years, 17 (who adds sarcastically that Demosthenes and Lycurgus ‘almost exhibited the body of Alexander on the platform for us to see’); Justin 11.2.7–8.

35. Diod. 17.8.2; Arrian 1.7.2–3; Aelian VH 12.47; Justin 11.2.9.

36. Arrian 1.7.1–3; cf. Plut. Alex. 11.3; Diod. 17.8.2.

37. For a useful summary of the facts see Mitchel, GR, pp. 189 ff.; also Ferguson, Hellenistic Athens, pp. 7–10.

38. Plut. Demosth. 23.2; Demades, Twelve Years 17; Diod. 17.8.6–7; Justin 11.3.3–5; cf. Arrian 1.7.4.

39. Plut. Moral. 327C.

40. References to this affair are numerous but (inevitably) biased. Demosthenes, for instance, was accused by his enemies of large-scale embezzlement. See in particular Deinarchus In Demosth. 10, 18–22; Hypereides, In Demosth.4 (5) col. 17 [= MAO II, p. 513]; Plut. Demosth. 14.2, 20.4–5, 23.2–3; Aeschines In Ctesiph. 157, 160–1, 173, 209–10, and 239–40 (where he suggests that Demosthenes held back the money which would have delivered theCadmea and brought Arcadia's mercenaries from the Isthmus).

41. Diod. 17.7.1–2, 9; cf. Badian, Stud. Ehrenb., pp. 40–41.

42. Diod. 17.7.1–10; Polyaenus 5.44.5; [Arist.] Oecon. 1347a 7, 1351b 29. My interpretation differs substantially from the only other full-scale analysis I have seen, that by Badian (ut supr.), which seems somewhat cavalier with the order of events as recorded in our sources. The crux of the matter, clearly, is to explain why, when Memnon received orders to go to Cyzicus, his shortest route lay over Mt Ida.

43. Diod. 17.7.2.

44. Olmstead, pp. 491–4.

45. Arrian 1.17.9, 1.25.3 ff.; Diod. 17.48.2; Plut. Alex. 20.1. QC 3.11.18 probably refers to another Amyntas.

46. Justin 11.2.3, 12.6.14; QC 6.9.17.

47. Arrian 1.5.4.

48. Paus. 8.7.7; Justin 9.7.2; Plut. Alex. 10.4.

49. Arrian 1.7.5–7.

50. Diod. 17.9.2–4; Arrian 1.7.7–8; Justin 11.3.6; cf. Wilcken, p. 72.

51. Diod. 17.9.1, 5–6; Plut. Alex. 11.4–5; Arrian 1.7.11.

52. Diod. 17.11–13 passim; Arrian 1.8.1–7; Plut. Alex. 11.5–6; Justin 11.3.8. Arrian, following Ptolemy, suggests that Perdiccas ‘jumped the gun’ and started the attack without orders. This is extremely unlikely. Ptolemy, it is clear, wanted to minimize Alexander's responsibility in the matter: he further suggests that all atrocities were committed by allied troops, none by the Macedonians. Besides, Perdiccas was never a friend of his. For once Diodorus'account is fuller, more coherent, and intrinsically more plausible than Arrian's, and I have no hesitation in following it. cf. now Milns, pp. 40–41. For the figures of the dead and captured see also Aelian, VH 13.7; for the burning of the Thebaid, Paus. 9.25.10.

53. Plut. Moral. 260C; Paus. 9.10.1.

54. Diod. 17.14.1–4; Arrian 1.9.6–10; Plut. Alex. 11.5–6; Justin 11.3.8–11.4.8.

55. Arrian 1.9.9–10; Plut. Alex. 11–12, Moral. 259D–260D; Aelian VH 1.7.

56. Arrian 1.9.1–8; cf. Demades, Twelve Years fr. 65, where the orator declares, ‘Greece has lost an eye in the destruction of the Thebans' city.’

57. It was formerly thought (e.g. by Tarn, CAH, vol. VI, p. 356 = AG I, p. 7 and n. 2; but then Tarn always minimized Alexander's faults when he could, quantitatively if not qualitatively) that the average price of a slave was between 3–400 drachmas, and that therefore the recorded number of persons enslaved at Thebes must be ‘only a stereotyped figure’. We know now that such a price applied only to highly trained specialists, and that 88 drs. was not far off the average for an unskilled worker. See, e.g., W. K. Pritchett, ‘The Attic Stelae’, Hesperia 25 (1956), 276–81. In any case 30,000 slaves coming on the market at once was bound to create a glut and depress prices somewhat.

58. Arrian 1.10 passim; Plut. Demosth. 23, Alex. 13, Phoc. 17, Moral. 847C; Diod. 17.15 passim; Justin 11.3.3–5, 11.4.9–12; Deinarchus In Demosth. 101.

59. Deinarchus In Demosth. 32–4, with Burtt's notes ad loc., MAO II, pp. 196–7. Cf. Plut. Moral. 847F, 848E; Arrian 1.10.6.

a Cited by Aeschines, In Ctes. §160. Demosthenes called Alexander ‘Margites’, a particularly insulting allusion: this was the main character in a pseudo-Homeric pastiche caricaturing Achilles — the implication being that Alexander was no more than a comic imitation of his chosen hero. The ‘sauntering around’ (peripatounta) is a hit at his Peripatetic studies under Aristotle.

b Alexander, who knew his Herodotus, may well have recalled, with grim relish, the story which Cyrus told the Ionians, about the flute-player who tried to lure a shoal of fish ashore by playing to them. When they took no notice he put out a net, and hauled them in by the hundred. Seeing the fish jumping about, he said to them: ‘It is too late to dance now; you might have danced to my music — but you would not’ (Hdt 1.141).

Chapter 5

1. Justin 11.5.1–2, 12.6.15; Diod. 17.16.1. Amongst those executed was Eurylochus (Berve, APG, II, no. 323, p. 159), who had carried out diplomatic missions for Philip and in 342/1 held the office of hieromnemon to Delphi.

2. Burn, pp. 65–6; contra, Bosworth, CQ ns21 (1971), 104 (arguing for calculation).

3. Cited from Barbara Tuchman, The Guns of August (Dell, 1963), p. 374.

4. Arrian 7.9.6.

5. Griffith, GR, p. 127, n. 4.

6. See Plut. Alex. 15.3, Moral. 342D–E; Justin 11.5.5; Dessau, SIG³ 332 (cf. Berve, APG, II, no. 672, p. 337).

7. On Alexander's debts see Plut. Alex. 15.1, Moral. 327D (both from Onesicritus); Arrian 7.9.6 (following Ptolemy). For his general shortage of money see the evidence assembled by Hamilton, PA, pp. 36–7, and add Aeschin. In Ctesiph. 163. For the cash and provisions which he had when he crossed into Asia add Plut. Moral. 342E. cf. Bellinger, pp. 36–8, for a (very conservative) analysis of the army's expenses. Yet even he reckons a month's outlay at 193 1/3 talents, assuming the average daily pay for a foot-soldier to be 4 obols rather than 1 drachma. (However, he calculates the cavalry's wage at 2 drachmas, which is almost certainly correct.) This, we may note, was not the last occasion on which Alexander had recourse to his Companions for ready cash: see below, p. 431. Justin (11.5.9) emphasizes the troops' firm expectation of rich booty from the expedition.

8. Only Diodorus (17.17.3–4) gives a detailed breakdown. Totals in round figures are supplied by a number of sources, as under: The best modern study is that by P. A. Brunt, JHS 83 (1963), 32–4. He explains the main discrepancy between these sets of figures by assuming that some include the expeditionary force that was already in Asia, and by postulating an omission of 600 cavalry in the final sum. This is confirmed by Diodorus, who adds up his own figures wrong to produce totals of 30,000 and 4,500 respectively. Brunt reaches an overall total of 42,000 foot (32,000 + 10,000: the latter is a round figure and should probably be emended to 11,000) and 6,100 horse (5,100 + 1,000), the second figure in each case being that of the advance expedition.

9. Diod. 17.9.3.

10. See Brunt, ibid., pp. 34 ff., and Griffith, GR, pp. 129 ff., who provides a clear and sensible summary of the available evidence.

11. Justin 11.5.3. For the Corps of Pages see Arrian 4.13.1; QC 5.1.42, 8.6.2–6; Val. Max. 3.3.

12. cf. Parke, p. 186. Some modern scholars (e.g. Milns, p. 49) challenge this figure and estimate that Alexander had at least 15,000 mercenaries with him at the outset of the expedition. I remain unconvinced by their arguments. For the numbers of mercenaries serving Darius see QC 5.11.5; Paus. 8.52.5. Their numbers rose sharply after Issus; before that battle the total force is put at 30,000 (QC 3.2.9). But see below, pp. 228–9 and note ad loc.; cf. pp. 499 ff.

13. For a good and up-to-date account of this unit see Milns, p. 48.

14. Milns, ibid.

15. Justin 11.6.4–7, a crucial passage, but not utilized in the only discussion of the problem I have seen, that by Griffith, GR, p. 132. For the allocation of key posts to Parmenio's relatives and supporters, see Badian, TAPhA 91 (1960), 327–8.

16. Tarn, vol. I, pp. 12–13.

17. Justin 12.6.17.

18. Diog. Laert. 5.5, citing Homer, Iliad 18.95; cf. T. S. Brown, in MP, pp. 36–7.

19. I am much indebted here to the brilliant and politically acute analysis of Callisthenes' position by J. E. Atkinson, ‘Primary sources and the Alexanderreich’, Acta Class. (Cape Town), 6 (1963), 125–37, esp. pp. 126–7. As a parallel, Atkinson adduces the employment by President Kennedy of two reputable American journalists, Bartlett and Alsop, to write up the development of Ex Comm policy after the Cuban missile crisis. For Aristotle's views on his nephew's lack of common sense see Plut. Alex. 54; Johannes Lydus De Mens. 4.77.

20. For these poetasters see QC 8.5.7–8; cf. Tarn, vol. II, pp. 55 ff., Brown, MP, pp. 38–9. Choerilus: Horace Epp. 2.1.232, Porphyry on Horace AP 357. Pyrrho: Sext. Emp. Adv. Gramm. 1.282.

21. Arrian 1.11.1–12; Diod. 17.16.3–4; Plut. Moral. 1096B; Athen. 12.538c, 539d.

22. Callisthenes ap. Arrian 4.10.2; Eratosthenes ap. Plut. Alex. 15.2; and for the story of Seleucus and Laodice, Justin 15.4.1–6. The anchor-mark was said to be hereditary in Seleucus' family (ibid., §9): a handy proof of legitimacy, one might suppose.

23. Olmstead, p. 496.

24. Arrian 1.11.3–6; cf. Wilcken, p. 84; Hamilton, PA, p. 38; Hogarth, p. 177; C. A. Robinson Jr AHR 62 (1957), 328–9 = MP, pp. 56–7.

25. The party needed sixty ships to cross the straits: see Diod. 17.17.1.

26. Arrian 1.11.5–7; Justin 11.5.4–10; Diod. 17.7.1–2; Hdt 7.54. For the spear-throwing incident (only recorded by Justin, which does not necessarily invalidate it) see. W Schmitthenner, Saeculum 19 (1968), 31 ff., and H. U. Instinsky, Alexander der Grosse am Hellespont (Godesburg, 1949), who argues strongly that the conquest of the Great King was premeditated, and emphasizes Alexander's Panhellenic propaganda references to the Trojan and Persian Wars. Contra, F. W. Walbank, JHS 70 (1950), 80 (reviewing Instinsky), and Badian, GR, p. 166, n. 1 and Stud. Ehrenb., p. 43, with n. 29.

27. Justin 11.5.11: ‘precatus ne se regem illae terrae invitae accipiant’. For Alexander's fundamental religiosity see now the excellent survey by Lowell Edmunds, GRByS 12 (1971), 363–91.

28. Strabo 13.1.25–6, C. 593, with Jones's notes ad loc., Loeb edn, vol. VI, pp. 50–51.

29. Arrian 1.11.7–8, 1.12.1; Plut. Alex. 15.4, Moral. 331D; Diod. 17.7.3; Justin 11.5.12; Aelian VH 12.7, 9.38; cf. Olmstead, p. 496. For the murder of Priam by Neoptolemus see Paus. 4.17.3, 10.27; Virgil, Aen. 2.547. For Achilles'lyre-playing see, e.g., Iliad9.185–91. Aelian's clear implication is that the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus (and therefore that between Alexander and Hephaestion) was homosexual. Evidence for such a view goes back as far as Aeschylus (see frs. 228–9 Mette, and cf. Plato,Symp. 179E–180B), though how Homer interpreted it, despite Plato's somewhat parti pris testimony, is anyone's guess.

30. Diod. 17.17.6–17.18.1, with Welles's note, p. 167; cf. 17.21.2; Plut. Alex. 15.4; Arrian 1.11.7–8, cf. 1.11.2, 6.9.3.

31. Arrian 1.12.6; Diod. 17.17.3, cf. Hdt 7.44; Justin 11.6.1; Polyaenus 4.3.15. Alexander here borrowed a trick used by the Spartans against Pericles (or to be more accurate, a trick which Pericles anticipated that they would employ to discredit him) at the beginning of the Peloponnesian War: see Plut. Per. 33.

32. Anaximenes himself, as paraphrased by Pausanias (6.18.2–4), claimed to have begged Lampsacus off by a well-known philosophical ruse; but the truth is hinted at in Pliny, HN 37.193, where the quid pro quo is identified as some highly valuable gems from the local mines. Memnon was well aware of Alexander's financial straits: see Diod. 17.18.2–4, and cf. Badian, Stud. Ehrenb., p. 43 and n. 32.

33. Arrian 1.12.6–7.

34. Diod. 17.18.2. Milns, p. 56, suggests that the assassination of Philip in 336 still left them convinced as late as 334 that no invasion would take place. This seems scarcely less improbable than Justin's explanation (11.6.9) thatDarius deliberately let the Macedonians cross his frontiers in order to win more glory by defeating them in pitched battle.

35. Arrian 1.12; Diod. 17.18.2–4. E. W. Davis (see Bibliography) surveys most of the difficulties (his is the only detailed study devoted to the Granicus within recent years), but though he produces cogent criticisms of Tarn, Schachermeyr, and Beloch, he fails to produce any convincing suggestions of his own.

36. Plut. Alex. 16.1.3; Arrian 1.13.4; Strabo 13.1.11, C. 587; cf. Schreider, p. 15.

37. The Persians may also, as Tarn suggested (CAH, vol. VI, p. 361 = AG, vol. I, p. 16; cf. Fuller, pp. 148–9) have been determined to ‘strangle the war at birth by killing Alexander’, but this was a regular objective in all ancient battles and a good many modern ones (witness the Long Range Desert Group's commando raid on Rommel's H.Q. in 1942). On the present occasion it was, beyond any doubt, subsidiary to the Persians' main strategic plan.

38. cf. Fuller, p. 149.

39. For a full analysis of these figures see pp. 498 ff.

40. Arrian 1.13 passim; Diod. 17.19.1–2; Plut. Alex. 16.1–2.

41. cf. Hamilton, PA, p. 39, and reff. there cited.

42. Arrian 1.14.5–6, 15.1–5; Plut. Alex. 16.2–4; cf. Brunt, JHS 83 (1963), 27.

43. For examples of ‘bad’ advice see (besides the present instance) Arrian 1.18.6 ff., Plut. Alex. 29.3, 31.10 ff. The incident at Gaugamela: ibid., 33.10. For Callisthenes' role in smearing Parmenio generally see now Hamilton's excellent and informative note, PA, p. 89 — and for Alexander's characteristic desire to ‘compensate at once for his few failures’, Badian, Stud. Ehrenb., p. 47.

44. It is surprising how often this simple ruse seems to have worked in antiquity: see, e.g., its employment by Nicias during the retreat to the Assinarus, Thuc. 7.80, and by Darius I in Scythia, Hdt. 4.134–5. It is not necessary to argue, from Arrian 5.9 ff. (see below, pp. 394 ff., on Alexander's tactics at the Jhelum), that such a move would have required days of elaborate preparation. In any case, after that afternoon's events, Arsites is unlikely to have expected any action on Alexander's part till the following day.

45. Diod. 17.19.3; Polyaenus 4.3.16; Justin 11.6.10–12; cf. Schreider, p. 15. For a full discussion of sources and tactics see pp. 489 ff. Arrian (1.14.4) places the Persian cavalry line parallel with the river, and makes the attack take place the previous afternoon. The account — a sentence merely — by Polyaenus makes it clear that he is describing neither the first assault (if it actually took place) nor the final battle; it therefore seems logical to assume that what we have here is a minor action at the time of the dawn crossing. It would, in fact, be surprising if an army as large as Alexander's had got across totally unobserved.

46. A similar helmet is portrayed on the silver decadrachm he struck (? in 324) to commemorate his victory over the Indian rajah Porus (Paurava) at the Jhelum: see Hamilton, PA, p. 40, and reff. there cited.

47. Diod. 17.19.6, 20.2; cf. Arrian 1.14.7 (transferred by Ptolemy to the first assault), and see Fuller, pp. 151–2, who understands this manoeuvre very well, though he retains the Ptolemy–Aristobulus context.

48. Main sources for the details of the battle recorded here: Diod. 17.19. 6–21.5; Plut. Alex. 16.4–7; Arrian 1.15.6–16.3.

49. See Diod. 17.21.6; Plut. Alex. 16.6; Arrian 1.16.2–3, 5; and cf. pp. 497 ff. for a detailed discussion of the losses on both sides.

50. Arrian 1.16.4; Plut. Alex. 16.7 (on the authority of Aristobulus): Justin 11.6.12.

51. For the statues at Dium (executed by Lysippus) see Plut. Alex. 16.8; Arrian 1.16.4; Vell. Pat. 1.11.3–4.

52. Arrian 1.16.2–3, 6; Plut. Alex. 16.6–7.

53. Arrian 1.16.7; Plut. Alex. 16.8; cf. (e.g.) Wilcken, pp. 88–9, and my Appendix, pp. 508 ff.

54. Diod. 17.21.6; Arrian 1.16.5; Plut. Alex. 16.8; Justin 11.6.13.

a If we compare these figures with the full-strength army of 10,000 infantry and 2,000 horse which Philip raised in 359, it is clear that twenty-five years of increased prosperity had brought about a remarkable increase in overallpopulation — exactly as happened in Athens after the Persian Wars.

b After Issus Darius arguably had no less than 50,000 Greek mercenaries on his payroll: see QC 5.11.5, Paus. 8.52.5. Scholars generally (not always for convincing reasons) reduce these figures in a drastic manner. See now C. L. Murison, Historia 21 (1972), 401 n. 7.

c Normally hitherto attributed (cf. Arrian 7.25–6, Plut. Alex. 76; for the fragments see Jacoby FGrH 117) to Eumenes of Cardia, and known as the Royal Ephemerides. But scholars have long been embarrassed by the fact that neither Arrian nor Plutarch employs the ‘Ephemerides’ except for the period immediately preceding Alexander's death. A most convincing explanation of this omission has now been given by A. B. Bosworth in ‘The Death of Alexander the Great: Rumour and Propaganda’, CQ ns21 (1971), 93–105, esp. 117 ff.; if Bosworth's thesis be true, the Ephemerides can be virtually discounted as a source of evidence. At the same time it seems clear that somesort of log must have been kept: the scale, scope and complexity of the expedition demanded no less.

d It is possible that Darius' main forces were still partially tied down in Egypt (see Olmstead, pp. 492–3, 496, and above, p. 140), and that Alexander timed his invasion with this in mind. cf. Davis (Bibl.), p. 36.

e Religious ethics also partly dictated Arsites' response: under the reformed creed influenced by Zoroaster ‘a duty of the soldier and nobleman was to protect agriculture’ (A. R. Burn, Persia and the Greeks, pp. 62–3).

f The following account of Alexander's victory at the Granicus differs in several important respects from the traditional version, based on official propaganda, and preserved by Arrian (1.13–15.5) and Plutarch (Alex. 16.1–3), who utilized the accounts of Ptolemy and Aristobulus. Both make the battle take place that same afternoon, after a direct — and barely credible — frontal assault across the river. The sequence o events leading up to the engagement, as given here, follows Diodorus' 17.19.1–3. For a full analysis of the problems involved, see my Appendix' ‘Propaganda at the Granicus’ (below, pp. 489 ff.).

Chapter 6

1. Badian, Stud. Ehrenb., p. 46, cf. GR, p. 166.

2. Badian, Stud. Ehrenb., ibid.

3. Arrian 1.17.1–2.

4. Arrian 1.17.8; Diod. 17.22.1.

5. Plut, Alex. 17.1; Diod. 17.21.7; Arrian 1.17.3–8. For the Persian Royal Roads from Sardis and Ephesus, see Cary, The Geographic Background of Greek and Roman History (Oxford, 1949), p. 151; cf. pp. 162–3.

6. cf. the illuminating discussion by Griffith, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 10 (1964), 23–39, esp. pp. 24, 31–4, on which I have drawn heavily here. For Alexander's treatment of local mints see Bellinger, pp. 46–7; and for his dealings with the Lydians in general, the acute remarks of Badian, Stud. Ehrenb., pp. 44–5.

7. Arrian 1.17.9–13, 18.2; Strabo 14.1.22–3, C. 641; cf. Badian, Stud. Ehrenb., pp. 45–6; Ehrenberg, Alexander and the Greeks, p. 14; Tod, vol. II, p. 142; Milns, Historia 15 (1966), 256.

8. Aelian VH 2.3; Pliny HN 32.95, 35.16.12; cf. Bieber, pp. 37–8, 45 ff.; E. von Schwarzenberg, ‘Der lysippische Alexander’, Bonner Jahrbücher, 167 (1967), 58 ff.

9. Arrian 1.18.1–2; cf. Badian, Stud. Ehrenb., pp. 45–6, 53, GR, pp. 167–8; Bellinger, p. 48; Ehrenberg, Alexander and the Greeks, ch. 1. For Alexander's shortage of money at this point see Arrian 1.20.1 and p. 156.

10. Paus. 2.1.5, 7.3.9, 7.5.1–3; cf. Hdt 1.16; Strabo 14.1.37, C. 646.

11. Arrian 1.18.4.

12. That the Greek fleet was at Ephesus can be deduced, with reasonable certainty, from the fact that it beat the Persians to Miletus by three days; Darius' squadrons are unlikely to have been sighted till they were well past Rhodes, and we still have to allow time for the news to reach the king.

13. The garrisons of Dascylium and Sardis accounted for 5,000 league troops; Parmenio's force had the remaining 2,500, plus 2,500 Macedonians; and Alcimachus' corps also totalled 5,000. See Arrian 1.17.7–8, 18.1. This does not take into account the cavalry and light-armed troops left with Asander.

14. Tod, vol. II, nos. 184, 185, pp. 241–4; cf. Badian, Stud, Ehrenb., pp. 47–8.

15. Arrian 1.18.3–19.6; Diod. 17.22.1–5; Plut. Alex. 17.1, Moral. 180A 8; Val. Max. 1.1 ext. §5; Hdt 6.6; Strabo 14.1.7, C. 635; cf. Tarn, vol. I, pp. 18–19; Stark, AP, pp. 230–32; Milns, pp. 60–61.

16. Arrian 1.20.1; Diod. 17.22.5–23.1; QC 3.1.19.

17. Badian, Stud. Ehrenb., p. 48 (by far the most realistic discussion of this problem); cf. Tarn, vol. I, pp. 18–19 (who takes Ptolemy's account at its face value); Stark, AP, pp. 231–2, and Milns, p. 61, who adds some useful points.

18. Diod. 15.90, 17.23.4–6; Arrian 1.20.2–3.

19. Arrian 1.23.7–8; Strabo 14.2.17. C. 656–7; Diod. 17.24.2–3; Plut. Alex. 22.4–5, Moral. 180A 9; cf. Badian, GR, pp. 170–71, Stark, AP, pp. 234–5.

20. Diod. 17.24.1–3, an extremely revealing account.

21. Stark (AP, pp. 232–4) suggests a route by way of Alabanda and Lagnia; but this does not take into account the evidence concerning Iasus (see n. 22 below).

22. Diod. 17.24.1.

23. Tod, vol. II, no. 190 and note ad loc., pp. 252–3.

24. Pliny HN 9.8.27; cf. Athen. 13.606d–e. A different version of the story appears in Aelian, HA 6.15; here the boy is accidentally spiked on the dolphin's erect dorsal fin, and dies of his injuries.

25. For the siege of Halicarnassus in general see Arrian 1.20.2–23.6 passim; Diod. 17.24.4–27.6 passim; cf. Fuller, pp. 200–206. Over details of logistics I am much indebted to an unpublished paper, ‘Some problems on the provisioning of Alexander's army’, by Mr Don Engels of the University of Texas at Austin. See especially the material in n. 27 below.

26. So Fuller, p. 205.

27. F. Maurice, JHS 50 (1030), 221; Naval Intelligence Division, Turkey, vol. II (Naval Intelligence Division of Great Britain, 1943), pp. 36, 147; QC 3.5.6.

28. The story that this attack was initiated accidentally by two drunks from Perdiccas' battalion (Diod. 17.25.5; Arrian 1.21.1–2) is another instance of Ptolemy exculpating Alexander at the expense of his personal enemy Perdiccas: see above, p. 147 and n. 52, for a similar episode during the assault on Thebes, cf. Diod. 17.12.3, and Milns, p. 63.

29. Arrian 1.22.6. Diodorus (17.27.4) says the Macedonians forced their way through; but this makes Alexander's withdrawal less understandable.

30. Pliny, HN 5.31.134, records an anecdote according to which Alexander dumped all the homosexuals in Halicarnassus on this offshore island, renaming it Cinaedopolis.

31. Arrian 1.23.6–7, 1.24.1–2, 2.5.7; QC 3.1.1, 3.7.4.

32. Arrian 1.24.3–4, 1.29.3–4; Diod. 17.27.6–7; Plut. Alex. 17.2.

33. For the topography of Alexander's campaigns in Lycia, Pamphylia and Pisidia I have largely followed Freya Stark, JHS 78 (1958), 102–20, = AP, pp. 229 ff., and Geog. Journ. 122 (1956), 294–305.

34. Polyaenus 5.35; Arrian 3.6.6. A similar ruse had been employed by the democratic exiles who recaptured Thebes in 379: see Xen. Hell. 5.4.1–5.

35. Arrian 1.24.4–5; Strabo 14.3.9, C. 666; cf. Stark, AP, pp. 238–43.

36. Plut. Alex. 17.2–3; cf. Stark, AP, pp. 245–7.

37. Arrian 1.26.1; Plut. Alex. 17.4; cf. Stark, AP, pp. 86–7.

38. Arrian 1.25 passim; Justin 11.7.1–2; cf. Diod. 17.32.1–2, who gives the detail about Olympias' correspondence, but places the whole episode much later, when Alexander was at Tarsus.

39. Plut. Alex. 17.3–5; Arrian 1.26.1–2; Callisthenes ap. Schol. T. Eustath. Homer, Iliad 14.29. It has recently been argued, e.g. by Pearson, pp. 36 ff., cf. Badian Gnomon 33 (1961), 661, that Callisthenes did not say the sea madeobeisance to Alexander, and that the remark may be due to the scholiast. This I find most improbable. Badian points out, correctly, that Callisthenes was a man of principle who died for his beliefs. But men who die for a principle do not invariably live by it, as every Catholic knows; and the split in Callisthenes' mind between verbal rhetoric and the harsh realities of life is absolutely characteristic of the mandarin element in fourth-century Greek intellectual training.

40. Menander ap. Plut. Alex. 17.4 (= Kock, vol. III, p. 240); Strabo 14.3.9, C. 666–7.

41. For the topography of the Pamphylian coast see Stark, AP, pp. 248 ff., and Snyder, pp. 51–2.

42. Diod. 17.28.1–5; Arrian 1.24.6; cf. Stark, AP, pp. 80–81, 250–51.

43. Arrian 1.26.2–27.4; cf. Badian, GR, p. 167, and Stud. Ehrenb., p. 49, where he writes: ‘The freedom of the Greek cities of Asia, at this time, was not unlike that of the satellite governments in the Stalin era, or that of VictorEmmanuel III, who was popularly said to be free to do everything that Mussolini wanted.’

44. Arrian 1.27.6–28.1; cf. Stark, AP, pp. 253–5, to whom I am greatly indebted for this reconstruction of events.

45. Stark, AP, p. 103. For Sagalassus see Arrian 1.28.2–8.

46. Arrian 1.29.1–4; QC 3.1.1–13; Hdt 7.26; Xen. Anab. 1.2.7; Livy 38.13; cf. Cary, Geographical Background, pp. 154–5; Tarn, vol. II, pp. 177–8.

47. Diod. 17.29.1–3, 17.31.3–4; Arrian 2.1.1–3 (placing Memnon's death before the siege of Mytilene was complete). For the revolt of Cos and Samos see Arrian 1.19.8; Diod. 17.27.5–6. For Chios, cf. Tod, vol. II, no. 192, with commentary pp. 263–7. Miletus and Priene: Badian, Stud. Ehrenb., pp. 48–50, with reff. ad loc.

48. For the episode of the Gordian Knot see Arrian 2.3 passim; QC 3.1.14–18; Plut. Alex. 18.1–2; Justin 11.7 passim; schol. Eur. Hipp. 671; cf. Schachermeyr, pp. 159–62, and especially E. A. Fredricksmeyer, CPh 56 (1961), 160–68.

49. QC 3.1.9–10, 19–20; Arrian 1.29.56, 2.2.3; Diod. 17.31.3–4.

50. Arrian 2.4.1–3; QC 3.1.22–4; Plut. Alex. 18.3; Diod. 17.29.4, 17.31.4. For the chronology of these vital summer months see Miltner, Jahr. Oest. Arch. Inst. 28 (1933), 71; Judeich, in Kromayer and Veith, Antike Schlachtfelder 4 (Berlin, 1929), 355–6; and, now, Murison, Historia 21 (1972), 404–6 with n. 21. I do not accept his (admittedly tentative) suggestion, following Beloch, GG III 2² 311–12, that Alexander lingered at Gordium to watch the situation in the Aegean. On the other hand, he may well have spent more time than is generally supposed on the ‘pacification’ of the area round Ancyra, since news of Darius' move to Babylon only reached him there in mid July (Murison 406), and he did not reach Tarsus till September.

51. Arrian 2.1.3–2.2.5; QC 3.2 passim, 3.3.1; Diod. 17.30 passim, 31.1–2.

52. Arrian 2.4.2–6; QC 3.1.24, 3.4.1–15; Justin 11.8.1–2; cf. Snyder, pp. 57–8. Alexander's practice of force-marching over ill-supplied stretches of terrain was first pointed out to me by Mr Don Engels (see above, n. 25), and I am much indebted to him for the observation.

53. The date of entry into Tarsus: Bellinger, pp. 10–11, cf. Judeich, op. cit., p. 355. Alexander's illness: Diod. 17.41.4–6; Arrian 2.4.7–11; QC 3.5–6 passim, 3.7.1; Justin 11.8.3–9; Plut. Alex. 19; Val. Max. 3.8 ext. §6; Pap. Oxyrh. 1798, fr. 44, col. 1; cf. Strabo 14.5.12, C. 673. I am informed by Mr David Kusin that many of Alexander's symptoms — including the sweetish odour of his breath and body (Plut. Alex. 4.2) and his three-day recovery-spells after extreme physical or emotional shock — are typical of borderline diabetics.

54. For Alexander's coining activities in Cilicia, Syria and Phoenicia see Bellinger, pp. 10–11, 34 ff., and especially pp. 54–5, quoted in the text. Parmenio's movements round the Gulf of Alexandretta: Diod. 17.32.2; Arrian 2.5.1; QC 3.7.6–7.

55. Arrian 3.6.7; Plut. Alex. 41.4; cf. (with reservations) Badian, Historia 9 (1960), 245–6. For Alexander of Epirus' campaign in S. Italy see Arist. fr. 614 (Rose); Justin 12.2.1–11; Livy 8.24; QC 8.1.37; Plut. Moral. 326B (cf. 818B–C for Cleopatra's reputedly lax sexual habits); Strabo 6.1.5, C. 256, 6.3.4, c. 280.

56. The story is related by numerous sources: see Arrian 2.5.2–4; Aristobulus ap. Athen. 12.530b–c; Plut. Moral. 336C, cf. 330F; Strabo 14.5.9, c. 672; Photius and the Suda s.v. Sardanapalos. That the tomb and inscription actually were what they were claimed to be is very unlikely: see Snyder, p. 60, who suggests a possible explanation. For Aristotle's use of the anecdote see Eth. Eud. 1216a 16 (cf. Cicero, Tusc. Disp. 5.35), and Jaeger, Aristotle, pp. 253–5.

57. The object of this operation was to safeguard the only good land-route into Anatolia west of the Cilician Gates: see Stark, AP, p. 16.

58. Arrian 2.5.6–2.6.2; Diod. 17.32.4; QC 3.7.2–15. The movements of Alexander and Parmenio before Issus are hard to reconstruct from our sources. Alexander made a major error of judgement, and Ptolemy in particular was anxious to obscure this unpalatable fact as far as possible. Arrian does not help by mixing up the Pillar of Jonah and the Syrian Gates. Between Mallus—Castabala—Myriandrus Alexander was certainly in a spectacular hurry, covering the distance (about 75 miles) in some 48 hours, timing which has provoked incredulity from scholars (see Murison, op. cit., p. 409, nn. 30, 32) but seems by no means impossible if we take it as the speed of the advance guard. Cf. above, p. 325 and note ad loc.

59. Identification of the R. Pinarus remains dubious: for a conspectus of conflicting views see Murison, op. cit., p. 403, n. 10. He himself follows Janke, who came down decisively in favour of the Deli; but Janke's autopsy has lately been challenged by another on-the-spot topographer, Freya Stark. See AP p. 6, note cited by Murison. Mr Don Engels similarly opts for the Payas.

60. Arrian 2.7.1–2.8.3, 2.11.9–10; QC 3.8.11–21; Diod. 17.32.3; Plut. Alex. 20.1–3; Polyb. 12.17.2–4, 12.19.4–9; Pap. Oxyrh. 1798, fr. 44, col. 2; cf. Tarn, vol. I, pp. 25–6 (quoted here).

61. On this important point see Marsden, The Campaign of Gaugamela, pp. 4–5.

62. For the battle of Issus see Diod. 17.33–35.4; Polyb. 12.17–23; QC 3. 8–11.5; Justin 11.9.1–9; Plut. Alex. 20.1–5, Moral. 341B–C; Arrian 2.8–11 passim; cf. Fuller, pp. 157–62, Marsden, pp. 1–6.

63. Diod. 17.35–37.4; Plut. Alex. 20.5–21.3; QC 3.11.16–12.12; Justin 11.9.12–16; cf. Tarn, vol. I, p. 28 (quoted here).

64. cf. Jaeger, Aristotle, pp. 132 ff.; Eddy, The King Must Die, pp. 62–3 and reff. there cited.

a Just how precarious Alexander's communications were is shown by the fact that Amphoterus and his party had to make their way through the interior with local guides, and disguised in native costume to avoid being recognized (Arrian 1.25.9).

b In late April, according to Murison, Historia 21 (1972), 404, who bases his calculations on seasonal weather conditions.

c The two legends concerning the original dedication of the waggon are of interest in this connection. Both were handed down by the Phrygians themselves. The first ran as follows. Long ago, during a period of civil strife, it had been foretold that a man in a waggon would come to end the Phrygians' quarrels, and reign over them. Midas, a poor husbandman, drove up in his ox-cart while the assembly was discussing the oracle, and thus became king. According to the second account, the Phrygians had originally dwelt on the marches of Macedonia — indeed, in the Gardens of Midas (see above, p. 55), which were named after their king. Afterwards they migrated to Asia Minor, and settled in the area round Gordium. This hints at a successful conquest of the original inhabitants, a story Alexander would undoubtedly have heard from Aristotle during his schooldays at Mieza. When Midas dedicated his waggon to Zeus, it was in gratitude for having been granted rule over Phrygia (and presumably symbolized an end of wandering nomadism for him and his people).

d It could be argued — no doubt this was the line Alexander took — that the wording of the oracle was ambiguous, since luein in Greek can mean not only ‘untie’, ‘unfasten’, but also ‘sunder’, ‘break up’, ‘resolve’. In any case his use of a sword was symbolically appropriate, since if he was to become lord of Asia, it would be by force of arms.

e An alternative candidate is the slightly more southerly Hasanbeyli Pass, which now carries the main highway: Murison, op. cit., p. 408. From here the smaller pass of Kaleköy led into the plain of Issus.

f Alexander had been invited to Italy by Tarentum; he crossed over with fifteen ships and numerous horse-transports, leaving his wife Cleopatra (Alexander the Great's sister) as regent. After campaigning successfully in Italy until 331 (there is evidence that his venture had his brother-in-law's approval, if not his active backing), he was finally killed in battle. At one point he is said to have remarked that while he encountered men in Italy, Alexander in Asia had fought against women. See n. 55 to this chapter, below, p. 538.

g His Greek mercenaries, led by the renegade Macedonian, Amyntas, are said to have urged him to stay and fight it out in the plain, where he would have the advantage of numbers. This is a most improbable story. Darius' vast horde (600,000 according to some sources) was pure fiction, invented by Macedonian propagandists. The army he commanded at Issus was no bigger than Alexander's, and may, indeed, have not been as large, since he had been in too much of a hurry to wait for contingents from the more remote provinces. In any case, no professional soldier would have had anything but praise for the Great King's strategy. cf. Arrian 2.7.1; QC 3.8.11–13; Plut. Alex. 20.1–3.Murison (op. cit., pp. 400–403) appreciates Darius' underrated talents as a strategist, though his version of events differs in several essential respects from that given here.

h To employ the Cardaces as front-line troops was a new experiment — and one which the Great King never repeated. How far he trusted their military prowess, even before the battle, we can infer from the strong force of archers he posted in front of them on either flank. See Tarn, vol. II, pp. 180–82. The reported numbers of Darius' mercenaries (30,000), and, a fortiori, of the Cardaces (60,000), drew critical comment from Polybius (12.18), who argued that such masses of men could not be contained in the coastal strip. This objection has appealed to many modern scholars, but it ignores the factor of phalanx-depth. How many ranks were these units disposed in? The question remains open.

i However, in his dispatch to Antipater written after the battle (Plut. Alex. 20.5, Moral. 341C) Alexander merely noted: ‘I myself happened to be wounded in the thigh by a dagger. But nothing untoward resulted from the blow …’

Chapter 7

1. QC 3.12.15–26; Diod. 17.37.5–38.7; Arrian 2.12.6–8; Val. Max. 4.7 ext. §2.

2. Arrian 2.12.1–2, 14.7, 3.6.4 ff.; Plut. Alex. 24.1–2; Ael. VH 9.3; cf. Wilcken, pp. 105–7, Milns, pp. 85–6. For Alexander's coining activities see the monographs by E. T. Newell (Bibl. I c), and Bellinger, pp. 10–11.

3. Arrian 2.13.8–14 passim; QC 4.1.6–14; Diod. 17.39.1–2; Justin 11.12.1–2; Isocr. Phil. 120, Paneg. 162; cf. F. M. Abel, Rev. Bibl. 43 (1934/5) 528–39 (on the topography of Alexander's march through Phoenicia); Hamilton, PA, pp. 76–7, with reff. there cited; Marsden, pp. 6–7. On the exchange of letters between Darius and Alexander see E. Mikrojannakis, AM, pp. 103–8, summarizing his earlier work in modern Greek (see Bibliography II), and in particular G. T. Griffith, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 194 [ns14] (1968), 33–48.

4. Arrian 2.13.1–6; Diod. 17.39.1, 48.1–6; QC 4.1.1–3, 27, 29–40 passim, 4.8.15; Justin 9.5.3; cf. Marsden, pp. 6–7, Parke, p. 200, Badian, Hermes, 95 (1967), 176–9; Tarn, vol. II, p. 73 (on the communications bottleneck); Burn,JHS, 72 (1952), 81–3 (on Darius' western strategy).

5. Arrian 2.11.10, 15 passim; QC 3.13.1–17; Plut. Alex. 21.4–5, 22.2, 26.1, Moral. 85c; Athen. 11.781–2, 784a–b, 13.607f–608a; Justin 11.10.1–3; Cic. Pro Arch. 10; Plin., HN 7.29.108–9; Strabo 13.1.27, C. 594; cf. Bellinger, p. 56.Alexander's treatment of the ambassadors was splendidly illogical. He released the two Thebans because one was an Olympic victor and the other an aristocrat; he kept the Athenian with him as a favoured guest (though Athens was a member of the league), and placed the Spartan under open arrest (though Sparta had never signed the league treaty). The most sceptical treatment of the Barsine episode is (predictably) that by Tarn: see his excursus §20, ‘Barsine and her son Heracles’, vol. II, pp. 330–38. Contra, Berve, APG, II, nos. 206 and 353, pp. 102–4, 168. It is possible (see Arrian 7.4.4) that there was a confusion of identity here, and that ‘Barsine’ was also the name ofDarius' elder daughter — in which case Parmenio would have good dynastic reason for urging the alliance. Darius himself offered no less in due course: see Arrian 2.25.1 ff., and pp. 264, 287, above, with nn. 56 and 76 ad loc.

6. Arrian 2.15.6; QC 4.1.15–26; Diod. 17.46.4–6; Justin 11.10.8–9; Plut. Moral. 340D; Anaximenes ap. Athen. 12–531d–e; cf. Snyder, pp. 78–9; Bieber, pp. 48–52; Newell, Sidon and Ake, pp. 22–3, Royal Greek Portrait Coins, p. 13.

7. Arrian 2.15.6–7; QC 4.2.1–2; Justin 11.10.10.

8. Diod. 17.40.3.

9. QC 4.2.10.

10. Arrian 2.15.7, 16.7–8; QC 4.2.2–5; Diod. 17.40.2; Justin 11.10.11.

11. Diod. 17.40.3; QC 4.2.10–12; Justin 11.10.12.

12. QC 4.2.15.

13. Arrian 2.17 passim; cf. QC 4.2.18.

14. QC 4.2.6–9, 16; Arrian 2.18.1–2, 21.4; Diod. 17.40.4; Plut. Alex. 24.3.

15. QC 4.2.17; Arrian ibid.; Plut. ibid.

16. For the siege of Tyre in general see Diod. 17.40.2–46 passim; Arrian 2.15.7–24 passim; QC 4.2–4 passim; Plut. Alex. 24.3–25.2; Polyaenus 4.3.4; Justin 11.10.10–14; Zachariah ix, 1–8; cf. Fuller, pp. 206–16; Abel, pp. 543–4; K. Elliger, Zeitschr. f. Alttest. Wiss. 62 (1949/50), 63–115; M. Delcor, Vet. Test. 1 (1951), 110–24.

17. Diod. 17.40.5; QC 4.2.18.

18. QC 4.2.18 (timber brought from Mt Libanus); Josephus Ant. Jud. 11.317. Though most of Josephus' narrative (ibid., §§ 304–5, 313–45) concerning Alexander's relations with the Jews clearly depends on legend rather than historical fact, some genuine details can be salvaged from it, of which the present passage is probably one.

19. Arrian 2.18.3–4.

20. Diod. 17.41.1; QC 4.2.20.

21. Diod. 17.41.2; QC 4.3.20; Justin 11.10.14.

22. Diod. 17.41.3–4; QC 4.2.12.

23. Arrian 2.18.5; QC 4.2.21–2.

24. Arrian 2.18.4–6; QC 4.2.23–4.

25. QC 4.2.24.

26. Arrian 2.19.1–5; Diod. 17.42.1–2; QC 4.2.24, 3.2–5.

27. Arrian 2.19.6–20.2–3; QC 4.3.1; Plut. Alex. 24.2.

28. Arrian 2.20.4–5; Plut. Alex. 24.6–8; Polyaenus 4.3.4; cf. Snyder, pp. 85–6.

29. QC 4.3.11; Arrian 2.20.5.

30. Arrian 2.20.9–10; Diod. 17.43.3; QC 4.3–12.

31. Arrian ibid.; Diod. ibid.; QC 4.3.11.

32. Diod. 17.42.5.

33. QC 4.3.6–7, 9–10; Diod. 17.42.5–6.

34. Arrian 2.21.1 ff.; QC 4.3.13; Diod. 17.42.5–7.

35. Arrian ibid.; QC 4.3.14–15.

36. Arrian 2.21.3; Diod. 17.43.1–3; QC 4.3.13.

37. QC 4.3.16–18.

38. Arrian 2.21.4; Diod. 17.43.7–44 passim.

39. QC 4.3.19–20.

40. QC 4.3.21–2; Diod. 17.41.7–8, cf. 23; Plut. Alex. 24.3–4.

41. Arrian 2.21.5–7; cf. QC 4.3.10.

42. Diod. 17.43.5.

43. QC 4.3.24–6; Diod. 17.43–4 passim.

44. QC 4.4.1; Diod. 17.45.7.

45. Arrian 2.21.8–22.7 passim; QC 4.3.24, 4.4.6–9.

46. Arrian 2.22.7; Diod. 17.43.4–5.

47. Plut. Alex. 25.1–2; Arrian 2.23.1; QC 4.4.10.

48. Arrian 2.23.2–3.

49. Arrian 2.23.4–6, 24.1; Diod. 17.45–46 passim; QC 4.4.10–11.

50. Diod. 17.46.3–4; Arrian 2.24.2; QC 4.4.12–13.

51. Arrian 2.24.3–4; Diod. 17.46.4; QC 4.4.13.

52. QC 4.4.15–16.

53. QC 4.4.17–18; Arrian 2.24.5; Diod. 17.46.6; Plut. Alex. 4.4.

54. Arrian 2.24.5–6; Diod. 17.46.4; QC 4.4.16–18.

55. For these operations in the Aegean and Asia Minor see QC 4.1.35–6, 4.5.13–18, 22, cf. 3.1.24. Pharnabazus was captured by Hegelochus, but afterwards escaped (Arrian 2.3).

56. For Darius' second mission to Alexander see QC 4.5.1–8; Justin 11.12.3–4; Diod. 17.54.1. It is generally assumed by modern scholars — against the majority of our ancient sources — that there were only two embassies: see e.g. Hamilton, p. 77, and other reff. there cited, relying largely on Arrian 2.25.1–3. I cannot accept such a view. For the third mission, shortly before Gaugamela, see above, p. 287 and n. 76 ad loc. At the time of Tyre Darius would certainly not have conceded all territory west of the Euphrates. Neither Griffith nor Mikrojannis clarifies this point.

57. Darius' assembly of a new army at Babylon: Diod. 17.39.3–4; QC 4.6.1–4, 4.9.1–2.

58. Arrian 2.25.4–27; QC 4.5.9–12, 4.6.7–30; Diod. 17.48.6–7; Hegesias ap. Dion. Hal. De Comp. Verb. 18, pp. 123–6 R; cf. Abel, pp. 43 ff.; Fuller, pp. 216–18. On problems of logistics I must once again acknowledge my indebtedness to the work of Mr Don Engels. As regards mythical precedent for the killing of Batis, Alexander may have imitated Achilles more closely than Homer would suggest; both Sophocles (Ajax 1031) and Euripides (Androm. 399) know a tradition according to which Hector was still alive when Achilles slit his ankles and dragged him round the walls of Troy at his chariot-tail. There is no reason to suppose that Alexander, too, did not know this tradition — much less that he was incapable of emulating it.

59. Casualties and recruiting: Arrian 2.24.5–6; Diod. 17.49.1; QC 4.6.30–31; cf. Badian, Hermes 95 (1967), 187. The march into Egypt: Diod. 17.49.1–2; QC 4.7.1–3; Arrian 3.1.1–4; cf. Bellinger, p. 66. Alexander's enthronement as Pharaoh: Beloch, Griech. Gesch. III, ii, p. 315; Wilcken, pp. 112–16. The selection of Alexander's future site: Diod. 17.52.1–3; Arrian 3.1.5; Strabo 17.1.78, C. 792–4; cf. Welles, Historia 11 (1962), 271 ff.; Borza ap. Wilcken, pp. 335–6. For the Homeric reference to Pharos see Od.4.354–5, cited by Plut. Alex. 26.3.

60. Arrian 3.2.2–7; Diod. 18.48.2, cf. Plut. Phoc. 30.2; Aeschin. In Ctesiph. 3.163 ff.; Plut. Moral. 818E; Tod, II, no. 192 (pp. 263–7); [Dem.] On the Treaty with Alexander, esp. §§4–5, 7, 10–11, 12, 17, 20, 26; cf. G. L. Cawkwell,Phoenix 15 (1961), 74–8; JHS81 (1961), 34; Ehrenberg, Alex. and the Greeks, p. 27.

61. On this episode see, in general, Diod. 17.49.2–51.4; QC 4.7.6–32; Justin 11.11.2–12; Plut. Alex. 26.6–27; Arrian 3.3–4; Strabo 17.1.43, C. 814; Ps-Call. 1.30; Jul. Val. 1.23; Plut. Moral. 180D 15; Tod, II, no. 196. The modern literature is vast and often jejune; I mention only those works which I have found particularly helpful: Olmstead, pp. 510–12 (with further reff.); Hamilton, PA, pp. 68–70; Tarn, vol. II, pp. 347–59; Wilcken, pp. 121–9; Welles,Historia 11 (1962), 275 ff. For further reff. see Bibliography.

62. Arrian 3.3.1–2; Strabo 17.1.43, C. 115; cf. Snyder, pp. 102–3.

63. Arrian 3.3.3; Diod. 17.49.2–3; QC 4.7.6–9; cf. Welles, ibid., pp. 280–81.

64. Arrian 3.3.3–6; Plut. Alex. 26.6–27.3; Diod. 17.49.3–6; QC 4.7.10–16.

65. Arrian 3.4.1–4; Diod. 17.50.1–5; QC 4.7.16–22.

66. Justin 11.11.6.

67. Diod. 17.50.6–51.4 passim; QC 4.7.23–8; Arrian 3.4.5; Plut. Alex. 27.3–5, 5–6; Justin 11.11.7–12. The traditional responses were: (1) Alexander hailed as son of Ammon (Just. 11.11.7; QC 4.7.25; Diod. 17.51.1; Plut. Alex.27.3–4), (2) The punishment of Philip's murderers (Just. 11.11.9; QC 4.7.27; Diod. 17.51.2–3; Plut. Alex. ibid.), (3) Victory for Alexander in war and empire (Justin 11.11.10; Diod. 17.51.2; QC 4.7.26; Plut. Alex. ibid.), (4) Alexander to be honoured as a god (Justin 11.11.11; Plut. Alex. 27.5–6), (5) Site for foundation of new city approved (Welles, Hist. 11 (1962), 275–6), (6) Instructions on the gods to whom Alexander should sacrifice when he became Lord of Asia (Arrian 6.19.4).

68. Arrian 3.3.5, 3.4.5; QC 4.8.1; cf. Welles, ibid., pp. 278–9; Borza ap. Wilcken, p. 336.

69. Diod. 17.52.1–7; Arrian 3.1.5–3.2.2; Plut. Alex. 26.2–6; Strabo 17.1.6–10, C. 791–5; QC 4.8.1–2, 5–6; Justin 11.11.13; Val. Max. 1.4.7 ext. §1; Pliny HN 5.11.62–3; cf. Welles, ibid., p. 284 and n. 67 (for the date), 285–9.

70. Olmstead, p. 512 and reff. there cited; Strabo 17.1.43, C. 814.

71. Arrian 3.5.1–5, cf. 7.23.6 ff., Succ. 5; QC 4.8.4–6; [Arist.] Oecon. 1352a–1353b; cf. Badian, GR, pp. 171–2 and reff. there cited.

72. Arrian 3.6.1–5, 8; QC 4.8.7–15; Diod. 17.48.1–2; Plut. Alex. 29.1–3; cf. Badian, Stud. Ehrenb., pp. 54–5, Hist. 9 (1960), 245–6; Griffith, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 10 (1964), 23 ff.

73. For the account of Gaugamela which follows I am greatly indebted to E. W. Marsden's brilliant and incisive monograph The Campaign of Gaugamela (Liverpool, 1964), which should be consulted by anyone wishing to study the battle and its preliminaries in detail.

74. Arrian 3.6.4, 3.7.1–2, 3.8.3–6; QC 4.6.1–4, 4.9.1–6, 12, 14–15, 4.10.11–15; Diod. 17.53.3–4; cf. Marsden, pp. 15–23.

75. Diod. 17.55.3–6; Arrian 3.7.2–3.8.1; QC 4.9.14–4.10.17.

76. The death of Darius' wife: Diod. 17.54.7; Plut. Alex. 30; QC 4.10.18–34; Justin 11.12.6–7; Plut. Moral. 338E. The third embassy from Darius: Diod. 17.54.1–6 (with Welles', note, Loeb edn, vol. VIII, p. 228, n. 1); QC 4.11passim; cf. Arrian 2.25; Justin 11.12.7–16; Plut. Alex. 29.4.

77. The reconnaissance patrol: Arrian 3.9.1–3. Alexander's night-work on tactics and logistics: QC 4.13.16–17; Plut. Alex. 31.2–8; Diod. 17.56.1; cf. Marsden, pp. 46–7. On the relative size of the armies, Marsden, ch. III passim and reff. there cited. For Alexander's oversleeping, and his remarks on the morning of the battle, see QC 4.13.23–4 (cf. Marsden, p. 9, whose translation I have borrowed here); Plut. Alex. 32.2; Diod. 17.56.1.

78. Marsden, p. 64.

79. The speeches before the battle: QC 4.13.12–14; cf. Eddy, p. 31; Hamilton, PA, pp. 80 ff. (Darius); Plut. Alex. 33.1–2; cf. Wilcken, pp. 138–9 (Alexander).

80. For the battle of Gaugamela in general see Diod. 17.56–61; Arrian 3.8.7–3.15.7 passim; QC 4.12.18–4.16.33 passim; Plut. Alex. 32–3; Justin 11.13–14.5 passim; Plut. Moral. 180C 13; Polyaenus 4.3.6, 4.3.17; Strabo 16.1.3–4, c. 737, cf. 15.1.29, c. 399. I accept Marsden's date for the battle, 30 September; other suggested dates include 1 October (the most common choice), and 27 September (Burn, JHS 72 (1952), 84–5). See also Hamilton, PA, pp. 83–90; Fuller, pp. 163–80; and Milns, pp. 122–6 (the best recent general account, embodying the most useful parts of Marsden's thesis).

81. QC 5.1.3–9; Diod. 17.64.1–2; Arrian 3.16.1–2, cf. 3.19.1–2.

a At least 4,000 mercenaries had joined Darius in Babylon, and were thus available for immediate service. After Issus some 12,000 more had withdrawn in good order and force-marched down the Phoenician coast to the port ofTripolis, where the fleet that had transported them from the Aegean still lay at anchor (Arrian 2.13.2–3; Diod. 17.48.2; QC 4.1.27). They loaded up all the ships they needed, burnt the rest to prevent them falling into Alexander's hands, and then put to sea. The Macedonian renegade Amyntas took 4,000 of them to Cyprus, where he won over some local garrisons (Diod. 17.48.3; QC 4.1.27), and thence to Egypt, where the entire force, Amyntas included, was wiped out by Persian garrison troops from Memphis (Arrian 2.13.3; Diod. 17.48.2–3; QC 4.1.29–33). This is the only case of wholesale defection by Greeks in Darius' service. (Amyntas, as a Macedonian, stood in a special category of his own.) Most of them remained loyal to the bitter end, even when it was obvious that the Great King's struggle could not possibly succeed.

b Both Egypt and Cyprus (as Alexander reminded his audience) were still Persian-occupied. Sparta stood on the very brink of rebellion, and Athens had only held aloof till now through fear, not out of any sense of loyalty. If the Macedonian army left Tyre unconquered, and struck inland, Darius would have little trouble in recovering the whole Phoenician coast — after which a full-scale naval assault on Greece was a virtual certainty (though one which probably alarmed Alexander rather less than it did his officers: see above, p. 214). If Tyre fell, on the other hand, the Phoenician squadrons, deprived of their bases, would very soon desert to the winning side — a shrewd prediction which events were soon to vindicate: see below, p. 254.

c Both Curtius (4.4.3–4) and Diodorus (17.41.5) report that a large sea-monster appeared from the deep and crashed into the mole during these operations, though without doing it any damage. Tyrians and Macedonians alike took this as a favourable omen, the former going so far as to hold all-night revels in celebration, and to man their ships the following morning while still tipsy and garlanded.

d Alexander must have suffered heavy casualties during his Phoenician campaign: much heavier, certainly, than those put out by the propaganda section, which (for example) admitted a mere 400 Macedonian casualties at Tyre. Before moving on, therefore, he sent Amyntas, son of Andromenes, home to Pella, with ten triremes, on a fresh recruiting drive (Diod. 17.49.1; QC 4.6.30–31). Local volunteers and mercenaries were well enough in their way; but the backbone of Alexander's army remained the phalanx, and only Macedonians — as yet — could adequately fill the many gaps in its ranks.

e King Agis' activities in the Peloponnese were, nevertheless, causing Alexander some anxiety. The small number of reinforcements which now arrived from Antipater — a mere 400 mercenaries and 500 Thracian horse (Arrian3.5.1) — shows that the regent took an equally serious view of the situation.

f That Alexander anticipated commissariat difficulties on this march is clear: Arimmas, the satrap of Syria, had been ordered to set up supply depots for the army in advance, and was removed from office when he failed to organize sufficient provisions (Arrian 3.6.8, describing the journey between Tyre and Thapsacus). There is a sixty-mile waterless stretch on the Hamah-Aleppo section.

g This incident was afterwards turned, by Callisthenes and others, into something much less creditable to Parmenio. His conduct in the battle was represented as ‘sluggish and inefficient’; he was ‘envious and resentful’ of Alexander, and his message — probably a pre-arranged signal with the king to determine the timing of the main charge — became an abject appeal for help, which delayed Alexander just long enough to prevent his capturing Darius; cf. Marsden, p. 62.

i Alexander had not only defeated a far stronger army on its own chosen terrain, but had done so without over-heavy losses. His highest recorded casualties (P. Oxyrh. 1798) are 1,000 foot and 200 horses (other estimates range from 300 [QC 4.16.26] to a mere hundred [Arrian 3.15.6, probably drawing on Ptolemy]) — as against Persian losses, according to the same source, of some 53,000.

Chapter 8

1. Plut. Alex. 34.1–2; QC 4.11.13; cf. Hamilton, PA, pp. 90–99, Wilcken, pp. 137–8. For the tyrannies in Greece see [Dem.] On the Treaty with Alexander (xvii), §§4, 7, 10, 16; cf. Badian, JHS 81 (1961), 28.

2. For Persian religious opposition to Alexander see Eddy, pp. 41–7, 58–63, on which I have largely drawn here; for Aristotle's knowledge of Magian lore cf. Jaeger, pp. 132–5.

3. Diod. 17.64.3; Arrian 3.16.3; QC 5.1.10–16; Plut. Alex. 35.1–7; Strabo 16.1.15, c. 743; cf. Hamilton, PA, p. 93. There is a story (told by Plutarch and Strabo ad loc.) that Alexander set a plain-faced young slave of his on fire in the bath to find out whether naphtha was, in fact, water-resistant when ignited. For another anecdote of Alexander concerning ordeal by fire (again with a young boy as victim) cf. Val. Max. 3.3 ext. §1.

4. QC 5.1.20–39; Diod. 17.64.3–4; Arrian 3.16.3–5; Justin 11.14.8; cf. Hdt 1.179 ff cf. Olmstead, pp. 237, 517–18; Badian, Hermes 95 (1967), 184–5; André Parrot, Nineveh and Babylon (1961), pp. 170–76; Eddy, p. 105.

5. Administrative changes: Arrian 3.16.4–5; cf. QC 5.1.43–4, Diod. 17.64.6, and the valuable discussions by Badian, GR, pp. 173–5, and Hermes 95 (1967), 185. The Babylon mint: Bellinger, pp. 60–63, cf. Tarn, vol. I, pp. 130–31. Callisthenes' astronomical researches: Aristotle De Caelo 2.12. Restoration of Esagila and Alexander's relations with the Chaldaeans: Arrian ut supr. and 7.17.1–4, 7.24.4; Strabo 16.1.5, C. 738; Plut. Alex. 57.3; cf. Nock JHS 48 (1928), 21 ff.; and P. Jouguet, Homm. J. Bidez et F. Cumont, Coll. Latomus II (Brussels, 1949), p. 162. Troop-leave: QC 5.1.36–9; Diod. 17.64.4. Back pay and bonuses: Diod. 17.64.5–6; Plut. Alex. 34, 39; and especially QC 5.1.45.

6. Diod. 17.65.1–66.7; Arrian 3.16.6–7; QC 5.1.39–5.2.15; Justin 11.14.9; Strabo 15.3.10, C. 731; Plut. Alex. 36; Esther 6–7; cf. Olmstead, pp. 164–5; Parrot, op. cit., 198–9; and especially R. Ghirshman, Perse: Proto-iraniens, Medes, Achéménides (Paris, 1963) pp. 139–45.

7. Diod. 17.66.3–7, with Welles's important note, pp. 306–7; QC 5.2.13–15; Plut. Alex. 37.4, cf. 56, Moral. 329D. For Alexander's faux pas with Sisygambis see QC 5.2.18–22, cf. Diod. 17.67.

8. The revolt in Thrace, and Zopyrion's Scythian expedition: Diod. 17.62; Plut. Ages. 15.4; Justin 12.1.4, 12.2.16–17, cf. QC 9.3.21; Tod, II, p. 272; Badian, Hermes 95 (1967), 178–81. Agis' defeat at Megalopolis: Diod. 17.62.6–63.4; QC 6.1; Justin 12.1.6–11; cf. Badian, ibid., 190; Parke, pp. 201–2. Borza, CPh 66 (1971), 230–35, argues convincingly that the rebellion was put down before Gaugamela, but that Antipater's full report on it and other matters (e.g. Zopyrion's ill-fated expedition against the Scythians and Alexander of Epirus's death in S. Italy, cf. above, pp. 308–9) only reached Alexander in the summer of 330, after Darius' death, the essential facts having been sent through by fast courier (a topic on which Borza has collected some very useful information) while the king was still at Persepolis. Cf. now his further article, ‘Fire from Heaven: Alexander at Persepolis’, CPh 67 (1972), 233–45, esp. 239–40 (with n. 41) and 242, where Borza argues, persuasively, that news of Agis' defeat could have reached Alexander at any time from mid December, perhaps even as early as October. The tyrannicide group: Arrian 3.16.4–8. Bribes to Phocion and Xenocrates: Plut. Phoc. 18.1–4, Moral. 181E 30, 188C 9, 331E; Diog. Laert. 4.8–9. Alexander also sent back 800 talents to Aristotle for research on animal biology (Athen. 9.398e); Aeian, VH 4.19, suggests, interestingly, that this grant was originally made by Philip.

9. Diod. 17.67–69 passim; QC 5.2.7–5.5.4 passim; Arrian 3.17.1–3.18.9; Plut. Alex. 37; Polyaenus 4.3.27; cf. Stein, Geogr. Journ. 92 (1938), 314 ff., Fuller, pp. 226–34; Burn, JHS 72 (1952), 89–91. My account of the bridging of the Araxes follows Diodorus (17.69.1–2) and Curtius (5.5.2–4) rather than the more generally accepted, but less intrinsically plausible, version by Arrian (3.18.6,10). H. E. Del Medico, ‘A propos du trésor de Panagurište’,Persica 3 (1967/8), 37–67, pls. II–IV, figs. 8–15, suggests that the great rhyton-amphora in this collection illustrates the bribing of a guide to show Alexander the mountain-path round the Susian Gates. For a different view see G. Roux, Ant. Kunst 7 (1964), 30–41. The mutilated Greek prisoners: Diod. 17.69; QC 5.5.5–24; Justin 11.14.11–12. Their numbers are variously given as 800 or 4,000.

10. For this analysis of Magian opposition to Alexander I am much indebted to Eddy, esp. pp. 12–19; I have also used his translation of Orac. Sib. 3.388 ff. For the New Year festival in Persepolis see Ghirshman, op. cit., esp. pp. 147 ff.; cf. Parrot, pp. 193 ff.; Olmstead, pp. 172–84, 519–22.

11. Diod. 17.70–71; Plut. Alex. 37.1–2; QC 5.6.1–10; Justin 11.14.10; Strabo 15.3.9, C. 731; Athen. 12.514e; cf. Olmstead, pp. 519–524; Eddy, p. 29 and reff. there cited; Borza, CPh 67 (1972), 239, 243.

12. QC 5.6.10; Plut. Alex. 39.6–41.2, Moral. 333A; Strabo 15.3.7, C. 730; cf. Ghirshman, pp. 130 ff.

13. Badian, Hermes 95 (1967), 186 ff.; for a different view see Borza-Wilcken, pp. 336–8. For the length of Alexander's delay at Persepolis see Plut. Alex. 37.3 (wrongly questioned by Robinson, Ephemerides, pp. 74 ff., and AJPh 5 (1930), 22 ff.); cf. T. B. Jones, CW 28 (1935), 124 ff., and the excellent note by Hamilton, PA, pp. 98–9. Ice and snowdrifts may also have hampered Alexander's advance.

14. QC 5.6.11–20; Diod. 17.73.1; cf. Hamilton, PA, pp. 98–100.

15. Diod. 17.72; Plut. Alex. 38; QC 5.7.1–11; Strabo 15.3.6, C. 730; Athen. 576e; cf. Ghirshman, pp. 154 ff.; Borza-Wilcken, pp. 336–8; Hamilton, PA, pp. 99–101, and Borza, CPh 67 (1972), 243–4.

16. Olmstead, p. 523; for excavations at Persepolis see E. F. Schmidt, Persepolis, 2 vols. (Chicago, 1953, 1957), esp. vol. II, pp. 91–111.

17. Arrian 3.19.1–5; QC 5.6.11, 5.7.12–19 passim; Diod. 17.73.1–2.

18. Arrian 3.19.5–8; Plut. Alex. 42.3; Diod. 17.74.3–5; Justin 12.1.1; QC 6.2.10.

19. Tarn, vol. I, p. 55. For the position of Parmenio (and Harpalus) see Arrian 3.19.3, 7; Plut. Alex. 35; Justin 12.1.3; Diod. 17.108.4; cf. Griffith, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 10 (1964), 24–7; Milns, pp. 143–5; Badian, JHS 81 (1961), 16–43, and Hermes 95 (1967), 188–90.

20. QC 5.12.18–20.

21. Diod. 17.74.1–2; QC 6.6.13; Arrian 3.25.3; cf. Hamilton, PA, pp. 114–15.

22. For the pursuit and death of Darius see Arrian 3.19.5, 3.20–22.1; QC 5.10–13.25 passim; Plut. Alex. 42–3, Moral. 332F; Justin 11.15; Diod. 17.73.2–4; Aelian HA 6.25 (Darius' dog); cf. Milns, Historia 15 (1966), 256 ff.; C. Neumann, Historia 20 (1971), 196–8; Hamilton, PA, pp. 113–14.

23. Wilcken, p. 150.

24. Plut. Alex. 43.2–3; QC 5.13.28; Diod. 17.73.3–4.

25. Diod. 17.74.3; QC 6.2.9, 6.3–4 passim; Plin. HN 6.17.44–5; Plut. Alex. 47.1–2.

26. The advance to Zadracarta: Diod. 17.75; Arrian 3.23.1–9; QC 6.2.12, 6.4 passim (see §§8–14 for Nabarzanes' letter); Plut. Alex. 44. Surrender of Persians and mercenaries: Diod. 17.76.1–2; Arrian 3.23.4–5, 3.24.4–5; QC 6.4.23–6.5.10. Alexander's shortage of horses: Justin 12.1.2; Plin. HN 12.18.34. Expedition against the Mardi: Diod. 17.76.3–8; QC 6.5.11–21; Arrian 3.24.1–3, 5.19.4–6; Plut. Alex. 44.2–3, 45.3, Moral. 341B.

27. QC 6.5.23; Dicaearchus ap. Athen. 13.603b = Plut. Alex. 67; cf. Badian, CQ ns8 (1958), 144–57; contra, Tarn, vol. II, pp. 320–23, who does his disingenuous best to dismiss Bagoas altogether, as a fiction invented by the Peripatetics.

28. Diod. 17.77.4–78.1; Justin 12.3.8–12; QC 6.6.4–12; Plut. Alex. 45.2–3, 47.5–6, Moral. 329F–330A; cf. Hamilton, PA, pp. 120–22.

29. cf. Milns, p. 157.

30. Justin 12.3.11–12.4.6, a significant and generally neglected passage.

31. QC 6.6.12.

32. Plut. Alex. 47; Arrian 3.25.1–7; Diod. 17.78.1–3; QC 6.5.32–6.6.35; cf. Tarn, vol. I, pp. 60–61; Wilcken, pp. 152–7; Cary, Geogr. Background, p. 197. For the episode of the Queen of the Amazons see Diod. 17.77.1–3 (with Welles's notes 2–3, pp. 338–9); Plut. Alex. 46.

33. The main source for the ‘Philotas affair’ is Curtius (6.7–7.2.34 passim); cf. Diod. 17.79.1–80.4; Plut. Alex. 48–49.7; Arrian 3.26; Justin 12.5.1–3; cf. Badian, TAPhA 91 (1960), 324–38, also JHS 81 (1961), 21–3; and Hamilton,PA, pp. 132 ff. (with some extremely sensible comments).

34. Plut. Alex. 48–9.

35. QC 6.9.18, 6.10.26–8, 6.11.23–5.

36. Plut. Alex. 49.3–4; QC 6.7.18–21; Diod. 17.79.3–4. For Philotas' own interpretation of the affair as suggested here cf. QC 6.10.15–18 (based on the defence speech he made at his farce of a trial).

37. QC 6.7.22; Diod. 17.79.4.

38. QC 6.7.23–8; Diod. 17.79.5.

39. Diod. 17.79.6; QC 6.7.24.

40. Diod. 17.79.2; QC 6.7.15.

41. QC 6.7.29–30; Diod. 17.79.6; Plut. Alex. 49.4.

42. QC 6.7.31–5; Diod. 17.79.6.

43. QC 6.8.1–14.

44. QC 6.7.2–17; Diod. 17.79.2.

45. QC 6.8.15–22.

46. QC 6.9.14–15.

47. QC 6.8.23–6.11.40; Plut. Alex. 49.6–7; Diod. 17.80.2.

48. Diod. 17.80.2; QC 7.1.5–9.

49. QC 7.1.10–14; Arrian 3.27.1–3; Plut. Alex. 49.7.

50. Arrian 3.27.5.

51. Diod. 17.80.3; QC 7.2.11–34, cf. 10.1.1 f.; Arrian 3.26.3–4; Strabo 15.2.10, C. 724; cf. Badian (n. 33).

52. Diod. 17.80.4; Polyaenus 4.3.19; QC 7.2.35–8; Justin 12.5.4–8.

53. For Hephaestion's promotion see Arrian 3.27.4; cf. Hamilton, PA, pp. 131–2.

54. Put. Moral. 183F 1.

55. Plut. Alex. 49.1; cf. Badian, TAPhA 91 (1960), 331 and n. 18, with reff. there cited. On the other hand Tarn, vol. I, pp. 62–4, accepts Philotas' guilt without any detailed examination of the evidence — though elsewhere (vol. II, pp. 270 ff.) he leaves no stone unturned (vainly, as he himself perforce admits) in an effort to exculpate Alexander from the murder of Parmenio. As Lowell Edmunds remarks, GRByS 12 (1971), 367–8, ‘the death of Parmenioepitomizes the end of the Macedonian phase of Alexander's career’.

a Alexander was scornfully amused by the statutory regulations — inscribed on a brazen pillar in the palace — for Darius' breakfast and dinner. These included such items as 100 geese or goslings, 400 bushels of wheaten flour, and a talent's weight (57 1/2 lb.) of garlic (Polyaenus 4.3.32). The interpreter perhaps neglected to inform him that this (admittedly extravagant) outlay was for the Great King's entire palace household and all his retainers.

b To judge from the massive donations which we find Alexander paying out at this point (Diod. 17.64.5–6; Plut. Alex. 34, 39; QC 5.1.45) he must have had some difficulty in persuading his troops to abandon the fleshpots of Babylon and take to the road once more — especially since they were marching east rather than west, deeper into Asia and not back home. Each Macedonian cavalryman received 600 drachmas — not far short of a year's pay — and other ranks proportionate amounts. The total expenditure came to well over 2,000 talents, but the Babylon treasury would appear to have footed the bill.

c The Great King's mother, daughters and son were left behind: they would be a serious encumbrance during the guerrilla campaign which Alexander had in mind, and something worse than an embarrassment when he finally reached his destination. To keep them occupied, he appointed tutors to instruct them in the Greek language (Diod. 17.67.1; QC 5.2.17–22).

d Probably the pass between the Dasht-i-Kavir and the Kuh-i-Surkh mountains, which runs east past the northern spur road to Firuzkuh and the Guduk pass, turning north-east to Damghan after Aradan: see now J. F. Standish, G&R, 17 (1970), 17–24.

e For Alexander's march-rates see C. Neumann, Historia 20 (1971), 196–8, defending Tarn and Hammond against R. D. Milns, Historia 15 (1966), 266, who had argued that a daily march-rate of 36 miles was a ‘physical impossibility’ and the 52-mile dash from Rhagae to the Caspian Gates ‘absurd’. Neumann cites some highly interesting march-rates from modern as well as ancient history (Antigonus, 44 miles per 24 hours; Scipio Africanus, between 46 and 54 miles per 24 hours; Gen. Craufurd, perhaps 52 miles in 24 hours). Cf. now C. L. Murison, Historia 21 (1972), 409 n. 32.

f For another incident of the same sort, see below, p. 369.

g Mr Don Engels, in an unpublished communication, argues that the river Alexander reached at this point was not the Murghab but the Kushk, some 180 miles from Susia (Tus); Arrian (3.25.6) states that Artacoana was 600 stades (70 miles) from the point where Alexander changed direction to deal with the treacherous Satibarzanes, ‘which gives a location on the Kushk and not the more northerly Murghab’. Mr Engels argues, with some force, that Alexander ‘would probably skirt the south edge of the Dasht-i-Chol, descend the Kashaf Rud to the Tedjen River (Ochus), and thence to the Kushk … If Alexander struck due east from Tus there would be only one river, the Tedjen, before he reached the Murghab, the rivers being 100 miles apart, 50 miles of which are over the Dasht-i-Choe. It is more likely that he chose the southern route.’ Likely, but in the face of the evidence not certain.

h This may have stirred up the troops, but it infuriated Alexander, who had been working very hard to undermine the whole idea of early repatriation.

i At least one modern scholar has fallen for this old propaganda trick: see Tarn, vol. I, pp. 63–4, and Badian's comments, TAPhA 91 (1960), 334–5.

Chapter 9

1. Our sources (Arrian 3.28.1; Diod. 17.82.1–8; QC 7.3.5–18; Strabo 15.2.10, C. 725), with their talk of houses totally covered by snow, etc., may exaggerate the hazards which Alexander had to face during this stage of his march. Mr Don Engels informs me that ‘in Kandahar, at least, the snow melts as soon as it hits the ground, and by the time Alexander reached the passes between Kandahar and Kabul (where the snow lies for only two or three months) the temperature would be moderating’.

2. For Alexander's campaigns up to the crossing of the Hindu Kush see Diod. 17.81–3 passim; Arrian 3.27.4–28.4; QC 7.3.3–19; Strabo 15.2.10, C. 725. The defeat of Satibarzanes: Diod. 17.81.3–6; QC 7.3.2, 7.4.33–40; Arrian 3.28.2–3. For the geography of Areia and Arachosia, cf. Cary, GB, pp. 196–7. Alexander may also have received the titular submission of Gedrosia at this time: see Diod. 17.81.2 (with Welles's note); Arrian 3.28.1. For the date of his arrival at the Hindu Kush see Strabo, loc. cit., and Jones (Bibl.), pp. 124–5. The crossing of the Hindu Kush: Diod. 17.83.1–3; Arrian 3.28.4, cf. 5.3.2–3; QC 7.3.19–23; cf. Milns, p. 168, Cary, GB, pp. 198–9. Bessus' scorched-earth policy and retreat beyond the Oxus: Arrian 3.28.8–10; QC 7.4.20–25.

3. Arrian 3.29.1, 5, cf. 5.27.5, 4.17.3; QC 7.4.32–7.5.12, cf. 7.5.27; C. A. Robinson Jr, AHR 62 (1957), 335 (= MP p. 63). The crossing of the Oxus: QC 7.5.13–18; Arrian 3.29.2–4; cf. Wilcken, pp. 155–6.

4. Milns, p. 169 (based on Arrian 3.29.7).

5. The surrender and execution of Bessus: Arrian 3.29.6–30.5, 4.7.3; QC 7.5.19–26, 36–43, 7.10.10; Diod. 17.83.8–9; Justin 12.5.10–11; cf. the very sound note by Hamilton, pp. 114–15, and reff. there cited. Ptolemy-Arrian tells the story of Bessus' arrest as I have given it here; Aristobulus and Curtius suggest that Spitamenes brought the prisoner to Alexander himself, which seems in the circumstances fundamentally improbable (but quite consistent with a source hostile to Ptolemy, who did not invariably tell lies to present himself in a courageous or generally favourable light, and on occasion — as here — did things his enemies would prefer forgotten, even if they were forced to produce a glaring improbability in the process).

6. The advance to Maracanda: Arrian 3.30.6–11; QC 7.6.1–10. Envoys from ‘Scythians’: Arrian 4.1.1–2; QC 7.6.11–12. Foundation of Alexandria-the-Farthest (Eschate): Arrian 4.1.3–4, 4.4.1; QC 7.6.13, 25–7. Revolt of Spitamenes: Arrian 4.1.4–4.3.6; QC 7.6.13–23; Plut. Moral. 341B. The raid across the Jaxartes: Arrian 4.4.2–9; QC 7.7.5–7.19.6; Plut. Alex. 45.5; cf. Fuller, pp. 237 ff. The destruction of Pharnuces' task force: Arrian 4.3.6–7, 4.5.2–4.6.2; QC 7.6.24, 7.7.31–9; cf. Hdt 1.201–13 (the destruction of Cyrus by the Massagetae). For Alexander's forced march on Maracanda see Arrian 4.6.3–7; cf. Borza-Wilcken, p. 338 (on the topography of the march).

7. Arrian 4.7.1–5, 4.15.1–6; QC 7.10.11–12; Strabo 11.7.4, C. 509. On Pharasmenes' visit cf. C. A. Robinson Jr, MP, pp. 63–4; and Hamilton, CQ ns21 (1971), 106–11. For Asander and Nearchus see Berve, APG, II, no. 165, p. 87, and no. 544, pp. 269–72.

8. Arrian 4.15.7–8; Plut. Alex. 57.4–5; QC 7.10.13–15; cf. Athen. 2.42 f.; Strabo 11.11.15, C. 518; Hamilton, PA, pp. 158–9.

9. Arrian 4.16.1–3; QC 7.10.15–16; Strabo 11.11.4, C. 517; Justin 12.5.13.

10. Arrian 4.16.4–4.17.2; QC 8.1.1–7; cf. Plut. Moral. 334F.

11. For the murder of Cleitus in general see QC 8.1.19–8.2.12; Arrian 4.8–9 passim; Plut. Alex. 50–52; Justin 12.6.1–17; cf. T. S. Brown, MP, pp. 40–44; Badian, Stud. GR Hist., pp. 197–8 (extremely important). The passage from Euripides' Andromache (vv. 693–700) is, except for the first line, taken from the translation by J. F. Nims (Compl. Gk. Trag., vol. VI, p. 184).

12. Province allotted to Cleitus: QC 8.1.20–21. The banquet before C's departure: Arrian 4.8.2; Plut. Alex. 50.2; QC 8.1.22; Justin 12.6.1. Arrian (4.8.1–2) and Plutarch (Alex. 50.3–4) both introduce a suspect ‘prophetic’ element which strongly suggests ex post facto tinkering by Aristander or Anaxarchus to relieve Alexander of responsibility for Cleitus' death by making that death predestined, and hence inevitable. Plutarch recounts a dream of Alexander's in which he saw Cleitus, dead and black-garbed, with the (similarly dead) sons of Parmenio — a gambit which the cynical might interpret as getting two absolutions for the price of one. He further recounts how Cleitus did not finish his sacrifice before accepting Alexander's invitation, but arrived for dinner with the sacrificial sheep trailing along behind him; whereupon Alexander (according to this tradition) consulted the seers, found the omens bad, and ordered sacrifices for Cleitus' safety. Verb. sap. Arrian, more restrainedly, but clearly drawing on a similar propaganda tradition, suggests that Alexander mistakenly sacrificed to the Dioscuri instead ofDionysus, thus presumably incurring the latter deity's wrath, with what results we know.

13. Arrian 4.8.2–3; QC 8.1.22.

14. Arrian 4.8.4–5.

15. Arrian 4.8.6; QC 8.1.23–6; Justin 12.6.2.

16. QC 8.1.30–37; Arrian 4.8.6; Justin 12.6.3.

17. Plut. Alex. 50.4–5.

18. Arrian 4.8.6–7; Plut. Alex. 50.6; QC 8.1.41–2.

19. According to Plutarch, Alex. 50.2, the original impulse for the feast came to Alexander from a consignment of Greek fruit, brought up by traders from the coast, which he wanted to share with Cleitus. The port in question must have been Harmozia (Hormuz) at the entrance to the Persian Gulf. It was probably on this occasion that a Sidonian merchant told Alexander of a shorter way to Egypt than the normal Susa—Babylon—Damascus route: that by way of Charax, Petra, and Rhinocolura (see Lucian, Rhet. Praec.5–6, a most valuable but seldom quoted passage, with A. M. Harmon's useful note ad loc., Loeb edn, vol. IV, pp. 140–41). Alexander — ill-advisedly — dismissed the merchant as a liar. His concern over the communications-problem had been sparked off by reports of disaffection in Egypt, perhaps as a result of Cleomenes' depredations (see above, pp. 278–9), which naturally made him anxious to get dispatches through to his officers on the spot as fast as possible. Lucian mentions in passing that ‘postmen had to run to every quarter of the realm carrying Alexander's orders’, one of the few allusions to this vital service which we possess.

20. Plut. Alex. 51.1–4; Arrian 4.8.7–8; QC 8.1.43–7.

21. Plut. Alex. 51.5–6; Arrian 4.8.8–9; Justin 12.6.3; cf. QC 8.1.28–9. Curtius presents a variant version of the actual killing of Cleitus, in which Alexander rushed into the lobby, snatched a spear, and waited there until Cleitus, the last guest out, passed him. Justin (12.6.4) has a passage of rather tawdry rhetoric in which Alexander heaps reproaches on his dead victim for praising Philip's military genius. I do not subscribe to T. S. Brown's belief (MP, pp. 40 ff.) that Plutarch's version is superior to all others and should if possible be followed against them; this is to apply in historical source-criticism the principle which A. E. Housman pilloried in editors, that ‘of leaning on one manuscript like Hope on her anchor and trusting to heaven that no harm will come of it’ (D. Ivnii Ivvenalis Satvrae, rev. edn, Cambridge, 1938, p. v: the whole preface is replete with advice which historians could well take to heart). For an episode such as this, where there must have been numerous original eyewitness accounts (with the inevitable complementary details and discrepancies), subsequently contaminated by various sorts of propaganda, exculpation, and special pleading, the historian can only sift every detail of each account on its intrinsic probability. There are no short cuts.

22. Arrian 4.9.1–2; QC 8.2.1–5; Plut. Alex 51.6; Justin 12.6.7–8, 10–14 (all describing his repentance and attempted suicide).

23. Arrian 4.9.3–5; Plut. Alex. 52.1; QC 8.2.6–7 (reporting the tradition that Alexander now remembered that he had forgotten to make sacrifice to Dionysus).

24. QC 8.2.8–10.

25. Three days: QC 8.2.11; Arrian 4.9.4. Four days without eating: Justin 12.6.15. One and a half days: Plut. Alex. 51.2.

26. Brown, loc. cit., places far too much reliance on Justin 12.6.17 to argue in favour of Callisthenes' continuing influence over Alexander at this point.

27. Plut. Alex. 52.1–4; Arrian 4.9.7–9; QC 8.2.11–12; Justin 12.6.17.

28. Further details in Berve, APG, II, pp. 206–8, no. 427.

29. Arrian 4.17.3–4.18.3; QC 8.2.13–8.3.17, cf. 8.1.20.

30. QC 8.4.1–17; Isocrates Ep. 3 (Phil. II) 5, cf. Philippus 113–14, 151.

31. Arrian 4.18.4–4.19.4; QC 7.11 passim; Strabo 11.11.4, C. 517; Polyaenus 4.3.29.

32. M. Renard, J. Servais, Ant. Cl. 24 (1955), 29–47; cf. G. F. Abbott, Macedonian Folklore (Cambridge, 1903), pp. 158 ff., 173. For Alexander's marriage to Roxane in general see Plut. Alex. 47.4, Moral. 332E, 338D; Arrian 4.19.5–6; QC 8.4.22–30; Diod. 18.3.3; Strabo 11.11.4, C. 517; Justin 12.15.9, 13.2.5, 9; cf. Robinson, MP, pp. 64–5; Hamilton, PA, pp. 129–30; Berve, APG, II, no. 688, pp. 346–7.

33. Arrian 4.21 passim, 4.22.1–2; Strabo 11.11.4, C. 517–18.

34. For Alexander's eastern foundations see Tarn, vol. II, pp. 234 ff. (a most exhaustive study). For the cities as a dumping-ground for malcontents see Justin 12.5.8, 13. The Greek mercenary revolts in Bactria: QC 9.7.1–11; Diod. 17.99.5–6, 18.4.8, 18.7.1–9.

35. Bactrian reinforcements: Arrian 4.22.3. For the ‘Successors’ see QC 8.5.1 (emphasizing their role as hostages); Arrian 7.6.1; Diod. 17.108.1–3; Plut. Alex. 47.3, 71.1.

36. QC 8.6.6; for a general account of the Corps, ibid., 2–5, and Arrian 4.13.1.

37. Balsdon, ‘The "divinity" of Alexander’, Historia 1 (1950), 375 (= MP, p. 191). The whole article is of the greatest interest and cogency. cf. Hdt 1.134; Athen. 10.434d; Arrian 4.10.5 ff.; Plut. Alex. 54–5.1; QC 8.5.9–24.

38. Balsdon, p. 376, and reff. there cited. For the incident involving Polyperchon see QC 8.5.22; cf. Plut. Alex. 74.2 and Arrian 4.12.2 for similar episodes.

39. Arrian 4.10.5 ff.; QC 8.5.5 ff. For a good analysis of the conflict between Anaxarchus and Callisthenes over proskynesis, see now Lowell Edmunds, GRByS 12 (1971), 386–90.

40. For this clique, and its deleterious effect on Alexander, see especially Plut. Moral. 65C–E; cf. QC 8.5.5–8.

41. See, e.g., Badian in his review of Lionel Pearson's The Lost Histories of Alexander the Great, Gnomon 33 (1961), 661–2.

42. Plut. Alex. 54.3–55.1; QC 8.5.9–24; Arrian 4.12.3–5; Justin 12.7.1–3; cf. Brown, MP, pp. 44 ff., and Balsdon, ibid.

43. The whispering campaign: Plut. Alex. 54.1–2, 55.1–2; Arrian 4.10.1–4; cf. Homer, Iliad, 21.107. The eristics challenge: Plut. Alex. 53.2–5; cf. Philip Merlan, Historia 3 (1954/5), 76–7. The translation from the Bacchae is that by William Arrowsmith, Compl. Gk Trag., vol. VII, p. 369.

44. QC 8.8.15. For the Pages' conspiracy see Arrian 4.13–14; QC 8.6–8; Plut. Alex. 55.2–5. A convenient conspectus of sources for evidence on Callisthenes' death in Robinson, HA, pp. 45–54 (trs. of Jacoby FGrH II B 124 T); see esp. Arrian 4.14.3–4; QC 8.8.19–23; Strabo 11.11.4, C. 517.

45. Plut. Alex. 55.3–4.

46. Arist. Met. 1.13.15, 350a 21 f., cf. Pol. 7.14, 1332b, where he reveals acquaintance with the Periplus of Scylax; Hdt 3.94, 98–106, 4.40, 44; Ctesias (ed. R. Henry) Indica, passim, esp. chs. 7, 11, 22–4, 31. Post-Alexander testimony (e.g. Arrian 5.4–6; Diod. 17.90.1–3; QC 8.5.1–4, 8–9 passim; Strabo 15.1.5, C. 686) is useless in this context, being invariably contaminated with material collected during the expedition itself. cf. Wilcken, pp. 173–4 (also 184–6, where he oddly asserts that Alexander knew nothing of Scylax's voyage down the Indus); Woodcock, pp. 16 ff.; and esp. A. Dihle, ‘The conception of India in Hellenistic and Roman literature’, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 10 (1964), 15–23.

47. Heracles in India: Arrian 8.8–9. Dionysus' exploits: Diod. 2.38. 3.63, 4.3; Arrian 8.5; cf. Strabo 11.5.5, C. 505. Semiramis: Diod. 2.1–20 passim. For Alexander's aspirations see, e.g. QC 8.8.15 – ‘utinam Indi quoque deum esse me credant’ (‘Would that the people of India too may believe me to be a god!’).

48. Reforms in the cavalry: Brunt, JHS 83 (1963), 27–46, esp. 29–31; Griffith, ibid., 68–74. For the size of the invasion force see Tarn, vol. I, pp. 82–4, cf. vol. II, p. 169; Milns, pp. 186–7; and Fuller, p. 124 (quoted here).

49. Arrian 4.22.3–4.23.1, cf. 4.30.4; QC 8.10.1–4; Strabo 15.1.26, C. 697; cf. Narain, MP, pp. 156–7; Cary, GB, pp. 197–8.

50. The Swat campaign: Arrian 4.23–30 passim; QC 8.10.4–8.12.3; Diod. 17.84–6; Justin 12.7. For the massacre of the Indian mercenaries see Diod. 17.84; Plut. Alex. 59.3–4; Arrian 4.27.3–4; Polyaenus 4.3.20; cf. Narain, p. 157 and reff. there cited.

51. Plut. Alex. 28.3, Moral. 180E, 341B; Aristobulus ap. Athen. 251a; cf. Arrian 4.26.4; QC 8.10.28; Homer, Iliad, 5.340; Tarn, vol. II, p. 358, n. 5; Hamilton, PA, p. 74. Cf. Lowell Edmunds, GRByS 12 (1971), 363 ff.

52. The Nysa episode: Arrian 5.1–5.3.4; QC 8.10.7–18; Plut. Alex. 58.3–5; Justin 12.7.6–8. Philostratus (Vit. Apoll. Tyan. 2.9) says that the inhabitants of Nysa deny that Alexander ever went up the mountain (‘in order to preserve the sobriety of his army — on water’). For an excellent first-hand modern account of the Kalash Kafirs see Fosco Maraini, Where Four Worlds Meet (London, 1964), pp. 242–71.

53. Milns, p. 205.

54. On Alexander's Track to the Indus (London, 1929), p. 154.

55. The capture of Aornus: Arrian 4.28–30.4; Diod. 17.85; QC 8.11; Justin 12.7.12–13; Plut. Alex. 58.3; Plut. Moral. 181C 25, D 27; Strabo 15.1.8, C. 688; cf. Fuller, pp. 248–54, and A. R. Anderson, Harv. Stud. Cl. Phil. 39 (1928), 12–25, esp. 18: ‘The Greeks naturally believed their religion, that is, their mythology and its divinities, to be ecumenical and universal (hence their identifications), and as their geographical horizon was extended, so likewise the sphere through which their gods exerted their power was enlarged.’ Cf. Edmunds, op. cit., pp. 374–5.

56. An identical pontoon-bridge of boats — soon to be replaced by a more permanent structure — still spanned the Indus at Attock, as recently as 1967, during the winter season, being dismantled at the approach of the spring floods. See Nat. Geogr. Mag. 133, no. 1 (January 1968), p. 56.

57. Arrian 4.30.7–9, 5.3.5–5.7 passim; Diod. 17.86.3–7; QC 8.12.4–9; Plut. Alex. 59.1; Strabo 15.1.28, C. 698, 15.1.32, C. 700 (the breadth of the Indus). For the excavations of Taxila, cf. Sir John Marshall, Taxila, 3 vols., Cambridge, 1951. The city Alexander saw was Taxila I, the so-called Bhir Mound north-west of Sirkap.

58. QC 8.12.10–18; Arrian 5.8.1–2; Plut. Alex. 59.1–3.

59. Son of Neoptolemus, and a Companion: born c. 360. See Berve, APG, II, no. 494, pp. 249–50.

60. Arrian 5.8.2–3; QC 8.13.1–5. For estimates of Porus' forces see Arrian 5.15.4; Diod. 17.87.2; QC 8.13.6. The elephants have given rise to much controversy: Arrian estimates their number at 200, Diodorus at 130, Curtius (in a context which suggests others in reserve) at 85. Burn, GR, p. 151 n. 2, objects that 200 elephants at 100ft intervals would produce far too long a battle-line; this is very probably true. Diodorus' estimate seems the likeliest. The Macedonians (see pp. 399, 407) were badly scared by these great beasts, which would inevitably lead to an exaggeration of their numbers — just as the number of infantry which crossed the river with Alexander was later minimized to conceal their enormous losses: see Tarn, vol. II, pp. 192–3 and Hamilton, JHS 76 (1956), 26, though neither draws the inference as to motive, and Tarn describes the reduced figure as ‘inexplicable’. The actual force which engaged Alexander was about 20,000 infantry, 2,000 cavalry: see Plut. Alex. 62.1. For the monsoon see Aristobulus ap. Strabo 15.1.17, C. 691–2.

61. Arrian 5.8.4–5.

62. Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. Tyan. 2.42; Pliny HN 6.21.62; cf. Fuller, p. 181.

63. QC 8.13.6, 8–9, 10–11; Arrian 5.9.1, 3–4.

64. Arrian 5.10.1–2.

65. Arrian 5.9.2–3; QC 8.13.12–16; Plut. Alex. 60.1–2.

66. Arrian 5.11.1–2; QC 8.13.17; Frontinus, Strat. 1.4.9.

67. Arrian 5.10.3–4; QC 8.13.17–19.

68. Diod. 17.87.3.

69. Arrian 5.11.1–2.

70. QC 8.13.20–21.

71. Arrian 5.12.1; cf. Fuller, pp. 186–7, Milns, p. 211.

72. Arrian 5.11.3–4.

73. See Fuller's excellent analysis, pp. 188–90, with fig. 14.

74. Fuller, ibid.

75. Arrian 5.12.2–13.3; QC 8.13.22–7; Plut. Alex. 60.2–4.

76. QC 8.14.1–2.

77. Plut. Alex. 60.4; Arrian 5.13.4.

78. Arrian 5.14.3–6; QC 8.14.1–2.

79. Arrian 5.14.1–2.

80. Arrian 5.14.4–5.15.1–2; QC 8.14.3–8; Plut. Alex. 60.5; Justin 12.7.4.

81. Arrian 5.15.3.

82. Arrian 5.15.4; Plut. Alex. 60.5.

83. Arrian 5.15.4–7; Diod. 17.87.4–5; QC 8.14.10–13; cf. Burn, GR, pp. 151–2.

84. Burn, ibid., p. 151.

85. cf. Milns, pp. 213–14.

86. Arrian 5.16.1–3; Plut. Alex. 60.5; QC 8.14.14–15.

87. Here I follow Hamilton, JHS 76 (1956), 26–31, against the majority of modern scholars, from Veith to Fuller, Burn, and Milns, who all assume that either the Indian cavalry, or Coenus' hipparchies, or both, moved in front ofPorus' infantry line. But this (from Coenus' point of view) would be sheer tactical lunacy, involving him in a four-mile gallop during which his left flank was permanently exposed.

88. Arrian 5.16.3.

89. Arrian 5.16.4; Diod. 17.88.1; cf. Burn, GR, pp. 153–4.

90. Arrian 5.16.4.

91. Arrian 5.17.1–3; QC 8.14.18; cf. Fuller, pp. 196–7.

92. Arrian 5.17.3; cf. QC 8.14.19.

93. Arrian 5.17.3–5; Diod. 17.88.1–2.

94. Arrian 5.17.7.

95. Arrian 5.17.6–7; Diod. 17.88.2–6; QC 8.14.22–29; Plut. Alex. 60.6.

96. Arrian 5.18.1–3; Diod. 17.89.1–3.

97. Arrian 5.18.4–19.3, esp. 19.1 (quoted here).

98. Diod. 17.88.6–89.6; QC 8.14.31–46; Plut. Alex. 60.6–8; Justin 12.7.5–6.

99. Arrian 5.18.3; Diod. 17.89.3. The higher estimate would represent the difference between the total figures which Arrian (5.14.1) gives for the assault-group, and the strengths which can be deduced from a study of the actual unitsinvolved (given by Arrian, 5.12.2, and well analysed by Tarn, vol. II, pp. 192–3). cf. above, no. 60.

100. This point is well brought out by Milns, p. 215.

101. General sources for the battle of the Jhelum (Hydaspes): Arrian 5.9–19 passim; QC 8.13.7–8.14.46; Plut. Alex. 60; Diod. 17.87–89.3; Justin 12.8; Polyaenus 4.3.9, 22; Pliny HN 6.21.62; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. Tyan. 2.42; cf. Fuller, pp. 180 ff.; Hamilton (cf. n. 87), and PA, pp. 163 ff. For the effect of the battle on Macedonian morale see esp. Plut. Alex. 62.1; and for the army's general exhaustion because of long service, worn-out equipment, and the monsoon, cf. Arrian 5.25.2, QC 9.3.1, Diod. 17.94.1.

102. Diod. 17.89.6; Arrian 5.19.2–3, 5.20.2–4; Plut. Alex, 60.8, cf. Moral. 332E.

103. Narain, GR, pp. 158–9.

104. Arrian 5.19.4–6, 5.20.1–2, 7; Plut. Alex. 60.7–8, 61, Moral. 332E; Plin. HN 8.64.155; Diod. 17.89.6; QC 9.1.1–2, 6, 9.3.23; Strabo 15.1.29, C. 698–9; Aul. Gell. NA 5.2.

105. Arrian 5.20.5–6; Diod. 17.90.4; QC 9.1.7–8; Strabo 15.1.28, C. 698.

106. Diod. 17.89.4–5; Arrian 5.24.8.

107. I am not convinced by the arguments of Droysen (Gesch. des Hellenismus, repr. Basle, 1952, pp. 356–7), or Andreotti, Saeculum 8 (1957), 143, that Alexander knew of the existence of the Ganges while still at the Jhelum: there is nothing in our sources which warrants such an assumption.

108. Arist. Met. 2.5, 362b 20–29. Aristotle reckons that the distance from the Pillars of Hercules to India exceeds that from Aethiopia to Lake Maeotis and the farthest parts of Scythia by a ratio of more than 5:3. Hdt 3.98 and 4.40, describing a ‘barren wilderness’ to the east of India, probably refer to the Sind Desert.

109. By Mr Philip O. Spann, of the University of Texas at Austin, in an unpublished paper, ‘Alexander at the Beas: Fox in a Lion's Skin’, from which I have derived much useful information.

110. H. G. Rawlinson, India: A Short History (London, 1938), p. 60.

111. Arrian 6.1.2; local informants were not slow (6.1.5) to correct so preposterous a story.

112. For the construction of the fleet see Arrian 5.20.1–2; Diod. 17.89.4–6; QC 9.1.4; Strabo 15.1.29, C. 698.

113. Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. Tyan. 2.42; QC 9.1.6; Arrian 6.1.1–6; Diod. 17.89.5–6; Strabo 2.1.6, C. 69, 15.1.25, C. 696. For characteristic views on Alexander's geographical knowledge at this point see, e.g., Schachermeyr, MP, pp. 123 ff. (‘Alexander und die Ganges-Länder’), with copious bibliography; Hampl, Nouv. Clio 6 (1954), 106; Radet, AG (Paris, 1931), 300; Tarn, vol. II, p. 281; Wilcken, pp. 184–5; Snyder, pp. 158–9. For a more realistic view cf. now Milns, pp. 220–21.

114. Arrian 5.20.8–5.24.8; Diod. 17.90–92 passim; QC 9.1.14–35; Strabo 15.1.30–31, C. 698–700.

115. Arrian 5.25.2; Diod. 17.94.1–2; QC 9.2.8–11, 9.3.1, 10; Plut. Alex. 62.1.

116. Arrian 5.24.5 (Macedonian losses); Diod. 17.93.1 (state of the Beas); for the various estimates of troops beyond the Sutlej see Diod. 17.93.2 (20,000 cavalry, 200,000 infantry, 2,000 chariots, 4,000 elephants, cf. QC 9.2.3), and Plut. Alex. 62.2 (80,000 cavalry, 200,000 infantry, 8,000 chariots, 6,000 elephants). For reports on the lands beyond the Beas see, in general, QC 9.2.1–10; Diod. 17.93.1–2; Plut. Alex. 62.1–3; Arrian 5.25.1.

117. A. V. Williams-Jackson, Cambridge History of India, vol. I, p. 341; Tarn, vol. I, p. 98, vol. II, p. 284. Andreotti, Saeculum 8 (1957), 144, improbably asserts that no one either knew or cared where this frontier was.

118. QC 9.2.10–11; Diod. 17.94.1–4.

119. Diod. 17.94.4–5.

120. QC 9.3.1 (confusing two separate meetings).

121. Arrian 5.25–26 passim; Diod. 17.94.5; QC 9.2.12 ff.

122. Arrian 5.27.1–9; QC 9.2.31–9.3.15; Justin 12.8.10–15.

123. Arrian 5.28.1–3; Plut. Alex. 62.3; QC 9.3.16–18.

124. Arrian 5.28.4.

125. Arrian 5.29.1–2; Diod. 17.95.1–2; QC 9.3.19; Plut. Alex. 62.4; Justin 12.8.16–17.

126. Vit. Apollon. Tyan. 2.43.

127. Milns, p. 223.

128. General sources for the mutiny at the Beas: Arrian 5.24.8–5.29.2; Diod. 17.94–5.2; QC 9.2.1–9.3.19; Plut. Alex. 62.1–4; Justin 12.8.10–15; Strabo 3.5.5, C. 171, 15.1.32, C. 700; Philostratus, Vit. Apollon. Tyan. 2.42–3; cf. Schachermeyr, pp. 357–9, Hamilton, PA, pp. 170–73. On the whole question of the territories beyond the Beas see Tarn, vol. II, pp. 275–85, and Schachermeyr, MP, pp. 137–49. I accept Pliny, HN 6.62, as evidence for the altars having been erected on the eastern bank: cf. (with reservations), Hamilton, PA, p. 175.

a Throughout the period 330–326 Alexander may very well have been commandeering or bulk-purchasing grain from some at least of Greece's normal sources of supply (which in his day, according to the Elder Pliny, HN 18.12.63–5, were — in that order — Sicily, North Africa, Egypt and Pontus) to keep his large army fed during its eastern campaigns. For the general grain shortage in Greece at this point, and the relief consignments (up to 805,000Aeginetan, or over one million Attic, medimni, the medimnus being about one and a half bushels) obtained from Cyrene, in N. Africa, see the remarkable inscription recorded in Tod, II (no. 196), with the editor's commentary, pp. 273–6.

b At the crossing of the Oxus two springs, one of water and the other of oil, were revealed when a trench was being dug for the king's tent. Aristander the seer, with his usual glib and platitudinous self-assurance, interpreted this as ‘a sign of difficulties to come and of eventual victory’.

c According to Curtius (8.3.1 ff.) the execution was carried out by Spitamenes' wife, playing Jael to his Sisera because she was tired of their fugitive guerrilla existence but could not persuade him to surrender.

d Unless, that is, we accept the dubious testimony of the Metz Epitome (c. 70), according to which Roxane bore Alexander a son who died soon afterwards, at the R. Jhelum (Hydaspes), in the summer of 326.

e At least 26,000 subsequently revolted (see below, pp. 421, 450), but we do not know how many remained in the settlements.

f The quotation itself (Bacchae, 266 ff.) was a well-chosen insult. The passage continues:

But you are glib; your phrases come rolling out
smoothly on the tongue, as though your words were wise
instead of foolish. The man whose glibness flows
from his conceit of speech declares the thing he is:
a worthless and a stupid citizen.

g In his Indica Ctesias describes men with tails and dogs' heads, and that fearful anthropophagous beast the martichora, and pygmies whose penises hang down to their ankles, and eight-fingered archers with ears large enough to shade them from the sun, and a tribe where the babies are born sans anus, only acquiring this essential feature later, at puberty — all those weird tales, in fact, which later turn up rechauffé in the Travels of Sir John Mandeville.

h One remark of Cleitus' which had particularly annoyed Alexander was a reminder of what Alexander of Epirus reputedly said in Italy: that he had fought men, whereas Alexander of Macedon had won victories over Asiatic women (QC 8.1.37). Hitherto the gibe had come uncomfortably close to the truth. From now on it was to be a very different matter. The warrior-tribes of Hindush gave Alexander the toughest opposition he had ever experienced, and in Porus he found an opponent who out-classed both Memnon and Spitamenes.

i Alexander had guards posted within earshot of each other all the way from his base-camp to Jalalpur — a new device seemingly based on the Indian look-out system.

j The exact site has not been identified, but it must have been somewhere between Nurpur and Malakwal. In this area there is still a village known as Sikandarpur (‘Alexanderville’), and though the name recurs frequently throughout the Punjab, it seems more than possible that the battle of the Jhelum was in fact fought here, or not more than a mile or two away to the south.

k Strabo (2.1.6, c. 69) remarks that ‘those who made the expedition with Alexander acquired only cursory information about everything, but Alexander himself made accurate investigations, since the men best acquainted with the country had described the whole of it for him’. In modern parlance, that is, he made a habit of personally debriefing local leaders, from Mazaeus to Porus: one important reason for his strategical successes.

l Craterus (who was not there) wrote a letter home claiming that Alexander had actually reached the Ganges — a hint of what the king's expectations may well have been at the time when the two men parted company. See Strabo15.1.35, c. 702.

Chapter 10

1. Plut. Alex. 47, Moral. 337A (cf. Hamilton, PA, pp. 130–31); QC 9.1.35; Arrian 5.29.2–5.

2. Arrian 6.1, 8.18; Diod. 17.89.4–5, 17.95.3; QC 9.3.20.

3. QC 9.3.21–2; Diod. 17.95.3–4.

4. Ephippus ap. Athen. 4.146c; Arrian 8.18.3–9, cf. Wilcken, p. 188; Plut. Eum. 2.2–3.

5. Plut. Alex. 35.8; Plin. HN 16.62.144 (exotic gardening); Theopompus ap. Athen. 13.586c, 595a–d; Python ap. Athen. 13.586d; Philemon ap. Athen. 13.595c; cf. Badian, JHS 81 (1961), 16 ff. = MP, pp. 206 ff.; Bellinger, pp. 78–9; Tarn, vol. I, p. 131; Diod. 17.108.5–6; Tod. II, no. 196 (pp. 273–6); Snyder, p. 160, with nn. 24–5.

6. Plut. Alex. 41.4; Python as above and ap. Athen. 13.595e–596b; for the Agen cf. (with reservations) Bruno Snell, Scenes from Greek Drama (Berkeley, 1964), pp. 99–138.

7. Arrian 6.2.1; QC 9.3.20–22.

8. Arrian 6.2.2–6.3.5, 8.18–19; Diod. 17.96.1; QC 9.3.24; Plut. Alex. 63.1; Plin. HN 19.5.22.

9. Lucian, Quom. Hist. Conscrib. 12. This anecdote — seldom quoted by modern historians — does not increase one's confidence in the writer who, with Ptolemy, was Arrian's main source. However, Aristobulus only began composing his final version of events at the age of eighty-four, by which time his views may have mellowed somewhat. Cf. Ps-Lucian, Macrob. 22.

10. The passage of the rapids: Arrian 6.4.4–6.5.4; Diod. 17.97; QC 9.4.8–14; cf. Plut. Alex. 58.4; Homer Iliad 21.228–382. The mobilization of the Malli and Oxydracae: Diod. 17.98.1–2; QC 9.4.15. The threat of mutiny: QC 9.4.16–23. Alexander's raid across the desert: Arrian 6.5.5–6.6.5. The campaign against the Malli: Arrian 6.6.6–6.7.6, cf. Tarn, vol. I, p. 103.

11. The incident of the soothsayer: QC 9.4.27–30. The storming of the Brahmin city, and Alexander's wounding: Arrian 6.9. 11; Diod. 17.98.3–99.4; QC 9.4.26–9.5.18; Plut. Alex. 63.1–4; Justin 12.9.5–11; Plut. Moral. 327B, 343D–344D.

12. QC 9.5.22–30; Plut. Alex. 63.5–6; Justin 12.9.12–13; Plut. Moral. 344F–345B.

13. Arrian 6.12–14.3; Diod. 17.99.5–6; QC 9.6.1, 9.7.12–15;Plut. Alex. 63.5–6. The revolt in Bactria: QC 9.7.1–11; Diod. 17.99.5–6, cf. Badian JHS 81 (1961), 25–7 = MP, pp. 216–17; Parke, pp. 195–6.

14. QC 9.6.26–7.

15. Diod. 17.100–101; QC 9.7.15–26. Dioxippus (see above, p. 383) was the man who told Alexander that the blood flowing from his wound was divine ichor; he seems to have been born unlucky.

16. Arrian 6.14.4–6.17.2; Diod. 17.100–102; QC 9.8.3–16; Plut. Alex. 59.4, 64; cf. V. A. Smith, Oxford Hist. of India, pp. 88 ff.; Badian, GR, p. 179.

17. Arrian 6.15.5, 6.17.3–4; Justin 12.10.1; Strabo 15.2.4–5, C. 721, 15.2.11, c. 725. For the use of arrows poisoned with snake-venom, and Alexander's cure of Ptolemy, see Diod. 17.103.4–8; QC 9.9.17–28; Justin 12.10.2–3; Strabo 15.2.7, C. 723.

18. Arrian 6.17.1–6, 6.27.2; Diod. 17.104.2; QC 9.8.28–30, 10.1.20; cf. Narain, GR, pp. 161–3, and reff. there cited.

19. Arrian 7.1.4–7.2.1. For the literature on the gymnosophistae see esp. Arrian 7.3 passim; Plut. Alex. 59.4, 65; Strabo 15.1.61, 63–5, 68, C. 714–18; cf. Woodcock, pp. 26–7; Narain, GR, pp. 160–61. H. Van Thiel, Hermes 100 (1972), 343 ff.

20. Arrian 6.18.3–6.20.5; QC 9.8.30–9.10.4; Plut. Alex. 66.1–2; Diod. 17.104.1–3; Justin 12.10.4–8; cf. Fredricksmeyer, p. 167 n. 39.

21. Arrian 6.21–22.3, cf. 8.20.1–11, 8.32.11; Diod. 17.104.3–105.5; QC 9.10.5–11; Plut. Alex. 66.2; Strabo 15.1.5, C. 686, 15.2.1–3, C. 720–21, 15.2.5, C. 722; Plut. Eum. 2.2–3; for mint production in Asia Minor cf. Thompson and Bellinger, Yale Class. Stud.14 (1955), 30 f.

22. General sources for the march through Gedrosia: Arrian 6.22.4–26.5 passim; Diod. 17.105.6–7; QC 9.10.11–18; Plut. Alex. 66.2–3; Strabo 15.2.3–7, C. 721–3; Pliny HN 12.18.34. The request for supplies in Carmania: Arrian 6.27.6; Diod. 17.105.7–8; QC 9.10.17; Plut. Alex. 66.3.

23. If 120,000 represents Alexander's original force in India (Plut. Alex. 66.2–3), and we subtract from this (a) Craterus' force of about 16,000 (Arrian 6.17.3–4; 7.12.1–2; Diod. 17.109.1–2), (b) Nearchus' complement of not more than 18,000 (Arrian 6.14.4, cf. 8.19.2–3), we get a figure of 86,000 for Alexander's force, assuming that losses and reinforcements more or less cancelled each other out. For the Companion Cavalry see Tarn, vol. II, pp. 162, 166 (who however refuses to accept the implication of this drop in numbers). On the march generally see H. Strasburger, Hermes 80 (1952), 456 ff., and 82 (1954), 251, cf. Brunt, GR, pp. 209–10 and n. 6. Alexander's route: Stein,Geogr. Journ. 102 (1943), 193–227 (against Strasburger).

24. Plut. Alex. 68.7; Arrian 7.4.2; cf. Badian CQ ns8 (1958), 147 f. Contra, Bosworth, ibid., ns21 (1971), 124 and n. 1, who argues against Apollophanes having been one of Alexander's victims on the grounds that he was cooperating with Leonnatus, and Leonnatus afterwards continued in favour: Ptolemy, Bosworth supposes, confused Apollophanes with Astaspes of Carmania. But Nearchus, whose dereliction of duty had arguably been at least as great (see above, p. 441), also retained the king's favour.

25. Athen. 13.595–6; cf. above, pp. 414 ff., and Diod. 17.108.5–8; Paus. 1.37.5; QC 10.2.1–3; Plut. Dem. 25.6.

26. Arrian 6.27.3–5, 6.29.3, 7.4.2 f.; Diod. 17.106.2–3; QC 9.10.19 f., 10.1.1–9; Plut. Alex. 68.2, 7; Badian JHS 81 (1961), 19–20 = MP, 209–10; Bosworth, CQ ns21 (1971), 124.

27. For the fragments of Nearchus see Jacoby FGrH 133F passim (= Robinson, HA, pp. 104 ff.) and especially Arrian's Indica, 8.17.6–8.42.10. It is just worth noting that Ps-Callisthenes 3.31.8 and the Metz Epitome, c. 97, name Nearchus among the final conspirators against Alexander. Badian, JHS 81 (1961), 20, suggests that Coenus' stand during the mutiny at the Beas ‘suddenly presented the terrible threat of cooperation between the nobles and the men’. But this threat had in fact been present ab initio; it explains (for instance) Alexander's determination to purge Parmenio and all his supporters.

28. Diod. 17.105.8; Arrian 6.27.1, cf. 6.22.3, 7.5.5, 8.23.4–5; QC 9.10.19; cf. Badian CQ ns8 (1958), 148, cf. MP, p. 211.

29. Report from Craterus: QC 9.10.19–20; news of trouble in the satrapies: Arrian 6.27.3–5; Diod. 17.106.2–3; QC 10.1.1–9; Plut. Alex. 68; cf. Badian, JHS 81 (1961), 16 ff. = MP, 206 ff. The Dionysiac rout through Carmania: Arrian 6.28.1–4; Diod. 17.106.1; QC 9.10.22–28; Plut. Alex. 67. The arrest of Astaspes: QC 9.10.21, 30; the trial and execution of Cleander and Sitalces: Arrian 6.27.3 ff.; QC 10.1.1 ff., cf. Badian, ibid., and Bosworth, op. cit., p. 124. The flight of Harpalus: Diod. 17.108.5–8, cf. QC 10.2.1–3; Paus. 1.37.5; Plut. Demosth. 25. For Artaxerxes Ochus and the satraps' revolt see Olmstead, pp. 424–5 and reff. there cited. The order to disband mercenaries; Diod. 17.106.3, 17.111.1, cf. Badian, ibid., p. 211. Cleomenes and Philoxenus: Ps-Arist. Oecon.1352a–b; Plut. Alex. 22, Moral. 333A, 1099D.

30. Craterus' arrival: Arrian 6.27.3; QC 10.1.9; Strabo 15.2.11, C. 725. The voyage of Nearchus: Arrian 8.21 ff. passim, cf. 6.28.5–6; Nearchus ap. Strabo 15.2.5, C. 721–2, 15.2.11–13, C. 725–6; Diod. 17.104.3, 106.6–7. The celebrations in Gulashkird: Plut.Alex. 67.3–4; Dicaearchus ap. Athen. 13.603a–b; Arrian 6.28.3, 8.36.3–4; Diod. 17.106.4–6; cf. Badian CQ ns8 (1958), 141 ff. The quarrel between Craterus and Hephaestion: Plut. Alex. 47.5–6,Moral. 337A. The length of Nearchus' voyage was convincingly calculated by Niese (see Welles's note 2 to Diod. 17.106.4, with ref.) as seventy-five days: Pliny, HN 6.100, gives its duration as six months, a patent impossibility.

31. Arrian 6.28.7–29.1, 8.36–37.1; Diod. 17.107.1.

32. Arrian 6.29–30.2; QC 10.1.22–38; Plut. Alex. 69; Strabo 15.3.7, C. 730; cf. Badian as above, n. 28. Arrian, Plutarch and Curtius all comment specifically on the degeneration of Alexander's character: Arrian 7.4.3; QC 10.1.39–42; Plut. Alex. 42.1–2.

33. Arrian 6.30.1–7.4.3; Plut. Alex. 68.1–4; Diod. 17.106.4; QC 10.1.17–19.

34. In particular W. W. Tarn, ‘Alexander the Great and the Unity of Mankind’, Proc. Brit. Acad. 19 (1933), 123–66, = MP, 243–86.

35. By E. Badian, in a crucially important article, ‘Alexander the Great and the Unity of Mankind’, Historia 7 (1958), 425–44, on which I have drawn heavily here.

36. Tarn, vol. II, pp. 296–7.

37. See in particular H. C. Baldry, The Unity of Mankind in Greek Thought (Cambridge, 1965), chs. I–III, and on Alexander's own attitude (a sceptical analysis of the Tarn theory), pp. 113 ff.

38. Arrian 7.6 passim; Diod. 17.108.1–3; Plut. Alex. 68.2–3, 71.1–2; Justin 12.11.4–5; QC 10.1.43–5; cf. Hammond, Epirus, p. 559; Milns, pp. 245–6.

39. The Susa marriages: Arrian 7.4.4–8; Diod. 17.107.6; Plut. Alex. 70.1, Moral. 329D–E; Justin 12.10.9–10; Chares of Mytilene ap. Athen. 12.538b–539a; cf. Tarn, vol. I, p. 117, vol. II, p. 166; Badian, Stud. GRHist. p. 201 (quoted here).

40. Arrian 7.5.1–3; Justin 12.11.1–4; Diod. 17.109.2; cf. Plut. Alex. 70.3–4, Moral. 339C.

41. On the Exiles' Decree see Hypereides In Demosth. 18; Deinarchus In Demosth. 81–2; Diod. 17.109.1–2, 17.111.1–2, 18.8.2–7; QC 10.2.4–7; Justin 13.5.2–5; Paus. 1.25.5, 8.52.5; cf. the masterly discussion by Badian, JHS 81 (1961), 25–31, = MP, pp. 215–21. Two inscriptions concerning Mytilene and Tegea (Tod, II, nos. 201–2) show just what sort of chaos the decree could produce. E. Bikerman, REA (1940), 25–35, suggests that Alexander's main motive may have been to plant supporters in the Greek cities.

42. As argued by Tarn, vol. II, pp. 370 ff.; well disposed of by Balsdon MP, pp. 202–4. Badian (ibid., p. 219) writes: ‘This attempt to justify perjury by blasphemy is now (one may hope) worth citing chiefly as a curiosity of scholarship.’

43. Plut. Moral. 219E–F, cf. Aelian VH 2.19.

44. Badian, Stud. GRHist. p. 202.

45. On the Deification Decree a voluminous modern literature exists: see in particular Balsdon, MP, pp. 199 ff. (with reff. there cited) who denies that Alexander ever requested deification at all. I appreciate his arguments but cannot accept them. Cf. Plut. Moral.219E and Aelian as above, n. 43. F. Taeger, Studies in the History of Religions (Numen Supplements) 4 (1959), 394 ff., suggests that Alexander's claims to divinity were largely his own idea, and not derived from sophisticated Greek notions (e.g. those of Aristotle or Isocrates). For Alexander's growing megalomania see J. R. Hamilton, CQ ns3 (1953), 156–7. See now in general Lowell Edmunds, GRByS 12 (1971), 363–91.

46. The voyage from Susa to Opis, and the weir-system: Arrian 7.7.1–7; Strabo 16.1.9, C. 739–40.

47. Arrian 7.8.1–2; Plut. Alex. 71.2; Justin 12.11.4.

48. General sources for the mutiny: Arrian 7.8–11.7; Plut. Alex. 71.2–4; Justin 12.11.4–12.12.7; Diod. 17.108.3, 109.2–3; QC 10.2.12–10.3.14; cf. Badian, Stud. GRHist., p. 200, and Historia 7 (1958), 428 ff.

49. Arrian 7.8.2–3; Diod. 17.108.3, 109.2; Plut. Alex. 71.2; Justin 12.11.5; QC 10.2.12–13.

50. Arrian 7.8.3; Diod. 17.108.3; Justin 12.11.6.

51. Arrian 7.8.3; Justin 12.11.7.

52. Arrian 7.8.3; Diod. 17.109.2; Justin 12.11.8; QC 10.2.30, 10.4.2–3.

53. Arrian 7.9–10 passim; QC 10.2.15–30; cf. Plut. Alex. 71.3.

54. Arrian 7.11.2.

55. Arrian 7.11.1; QC 10.3.5.

56. Arrian 7.11.1–2; QC 10.3.7–14; Diod. 17.109.3; Plut. Alex, 71.3; Justin 12.12.1–4.

57. Arrian 7.11.2–3.

58. Arrian 7.11.4; Plut. Alex. 71.4; Justin 12.12.5–6.

59. Arrian 7.11.5–7; Diod. 17.109.3; Justin 12.12.7.

60. Arrian 7.11.8–9; cf. Plut. Alex. 71.4–5, Moral. 329A–D; Badian Historia 7 (1958), 428–32 = MP, pp. 290–94.

61. Tarn, Proc. Brit. Acad. 19 (1933), 123–66 = MP, pp. 243–86, cf. his Alexander the Great, vol. II, pp. 440 ff.

62. Arrian 7.8.1, 7.12.1–3; Plut. Alex. 71.1–3, 5; Moral. 339C–D, 180–81, 21; QC 10.2.8–11; Diod. 17.109.1–2; Justin 12.12.7–10.

63. Diod. 17.110.3; Arrian 7.12.1–2; Plut. Alex. 71.5.

64. Badian, Stud. GRHist., p. 201.

65. Quoted by Arrian, 7.19.6; cf. Strabo 16.1.11, C. 741. The plans for conquest as far as the Atlantic: Diod. 18.4.4, cf. Schachermeyr, MP, pp. 324 ff; Badian, Harv. Stud. 72 (1967), 184–9; Bosworth, CQ ns21 (1971), 127 and n. 5.

66. QC 10.10.4; Arrian 7.12.6, cf. Plut. Alex. 39.11, Livy 8.24.17, Bosworth, op. cit., p. 126. For Alexander having been prompted to remove Antipater at the instigation of Olympias, see Ps-Call. 3.31.1, Metz Epitome 87, cf. Diod. 17.118.1, Justin 12.14.1–3.

67. Arrian 7.12.3–7; QC 10.10.15; Plut. Phoc. 18.4–5, 29, Moral. 472E (cf. 78D, 545A), 180E 17; Justin 12.12.8–9; Aelian VH 12.16 (on Alexander's jealousy of Antipater and others for their individual talents.– in Antipater's case leadership); Suda s.v. Antipatros.

68. cf. Bosworth, CQ ns21 (1971), 125–6.

69. For the poisoning theory see Justin 12.14; Plut. Alex. 77.1–3; Arrian 7.27; QC 10.10.14–17. The most persuasive modern advocate of this theory is Milns, pp. 255–8, cf. Hamilton, PA, pp. 213–14. See now also Bosworth, op. cit., pp. 113–16.

70. Bosworth, op. cit., esp. pp. 134–6; cf. Diod. 18.23.2; QC 10.6.9, 16–18, 21 ff.

71. For Antipater's secret negotiations with Athens and Aetolia, see Plut. Alex. 49.8; Diod. 18.8.6–7; Justin 13.5.1–8; QC 10.2.2; cf. Badian, MP, pp. 223–7, with reff. there cited; Bosworth, op. cit., p. 127.

72. The best modern investigation of Harpalus' return to Athens and the events which followed is that by Badian, JHS 81 (1961), 131–6 = MP, pp. 221 ff. See also Berve, APG, II, no. 143, pp. 75 ff. Sources: Plut. Dem. 25, Phoc.21.3 [Vit. X Orat.] 846A–C, Moral.531A, 845C; Diod. 17.108.7, 17.111.3; Paus. 2.33.3–4; Hypereides In Demosth. 3, cols. 8–13, 4(5) cols. 18–19, 7(8) col. 32, cf. fr. A13 (speech in defence of Harpalus, probably spurious); Deinarchus In Demosth. 68–71, 81–2, 89–90, 112–13, In Philocl. 1–2, cf. fr. B12 (speech on the refusal to surrender Harpalus to Alexander, probably spurious). All these passages from Hypereides and Deinarchus may be conveniently studied in J. O. Burtt, Minor Attic Orators, vol. II (Loeb, 1954). For the Samos affair see Plut. Alex.28, and J. R. Hamilton, CQ ns3 (1953), 151 ff., = MP, pp. 235 ff.

73. Tod, II, nos. 201–2, pp. 289–301, cf. Hamilton, op. cit., p. 152 f.; Badian ibid., p. 227; Wilcken, pp. 217–18.

74. Plut. Moral. 187E, 804B, 842D; Aelian VH 2.19.5.12, cf. Athen. 6.58; Diog. Laert. 6.8, 6.63; Val. Max. 7.2, ext. §13; Timaeus ap. Polyb. 12.12b.3; Hypereides In Demosth. 31; Deinarchus In Demosth. 94; cf. Badian, MP, pp. 223–4; Balsdon, op. cit., pp. 199–200.

75. Arrian 7.13–14 passim, 23.6–8; Diod. 17.110.7–8, 115–25 passim; Ephippus ap. Athen. 12.538a–b; Aelian VH 7.8; Lucian Cal. 17; Justin 12.12.11–12; Plut. Alex. 47, 72, Eum. 1, 2.4–5, Moral. 181D 29, 180D 14; cf. Berve, APG, II, no. 357, pp. 169 ff., and Hamilton, PA, p. 129 with reff.

76. Diod. 17.108.7–8, 18.19.2; Paus. 2.33.4; Hypereides In Demosth. col. 38 (cf. MAO II, pp. 167–8); [Vit. X Orat.] 846C. Philostratus, Vit. Soph. 538, suggests that Alexander himself provided the evidence on which Demosthenes was condemned. For Demosthenes' link with Hephaestion see Marsyas of Pella, FGrH, nos. 135–6, fr. 2, cf. Aeschines 3.162, both cited by Hamilton, PA, p. 130.

77. Arrian 7.15.1–3; Diod. 17.111.4–6; Plut. Alex. 72.3; Strabo 11.13.6, C. 524, cf. 16.1.11 (the region was a good source of timber).

78. Arrian 7.15.4–7.17.6; Plut. Alex. 73; Strabo 16.1.5; C. 738; Diod. 17.112 passim; Justin 12.13.3–5; Appian BC 2.153.

79. The embassies: Arrian 7.15.4–6, 7.19.1–2; Diod. 17.113.1–4; Justin 12.13.1–2; cf. M. Sordi, Rend. Inst. Lomb, 99 (1965), 435–52. The plan for invading Arabia: Arrian 7.19.3–20 passim; Strabo 16.1.11, C. 741, 16.4.27, C. 785; Plin. HN 16.80.221, 12.42.86–7. Alexander's ambition to outdo Dionysus: Plut. Moral. 326B.

80. Hephaestion's funeral: Diod. 17.114–5 passim. Other events: Arrian 7.21–2 passim; Diod 17.116.5–7; Strabo 9.2.18, C. 407; Appian Syr. 9.56, cf. Strabo 16.1.11, C. 741; Eddy, pp. 108–9; Cary, GB, p. 179.

81. Arrian 7.18 passim, 7.23.1–24.3; Diod. 17.110.1–2, 116.1–4; Plut. Alex. 73.3–4, 75.1–2; Justin 12.13.3–5; Ps-Call. 3.30; cf. Eddy, ibid., Milns, p. 254, and (with reservations) P. J. Derchain and J. Hubaux, Ant. Cl. 19 (1950), 367 ff.

82. Bosworth, CQ ns21 (1971), 126–7, 134–6.

83. Arrian 7.23.2; Plut. Alex. 74 passim; cf. Badian, MP, pp. 226–7.

84. Arrian 7.23.5; Aelian VH 3.23; Plin. HN 14.5.58; Plut. Moral. 207D 8; cf. Brunt, GR, p. 213; and D. Kienast, Gymnasium 76 (1969), 430–56.

85. For the chronology of Alexander's last days see A. E. Samuel, Historia 14 (1965), 8, citing A. J. Sachs, Late Babylonian Astronomical and Related Texts (Rhode Island, 1955), no. 209; Wells, Loeb Diodorus, vol. VIII, p. 467 n. 5, cf. Hamilton, PA, p. 210. For the events of this night, including Medius' party, see Arrian 7.24.4–25.1; Plut. Alex. 75.3; Diod. 17.117.1–3; Ps-Call. 3.31.8; Athen. 10.434a–c, 12.537d. The so-called ‘Royal Ephemerides’, purporting to give an account of the king's final illness and death (cf. Arrian 7.25–6, Plut. Alex. 76, Jacoby FGrH 117) have been much discussed, and until recently over-utilized, by scholars: see esp. C. A. Robinson, The Ephemerides of Alexander's Expedition (Providence, 1932: a fanciful if ingenious reconstruction). Corrective evaluation now provided by A. E. Samuel, ‘Alexander's Royal Journals’, Historia 14 (1965), 1–12; E. Badian, ‘A King's Notebooks’, Harv. Stud. Class. Phil. 72 (1967) 183–204, and, most recently, A. B. Bosworth, CQ ns21 (1971), 117 ff., who presents an excellent case for regarding the Ephemerides as a forged concoction put out as propaganda by Alexander's murderers.

86. For what is known of this person see Berve, APG, II, no. 521, pp. 261–2.

87. See in particular Arrian 7.27.2. The only list of conspirators (not per se an implausible one, though see Bosworth, op. cit., p. 116 and n. 3) is that given by Ps-Call. 3.31.8: Meleager, Leonnatus, Cassander, Peucestas, Philip the physician, and Nearchus.

88. Cleitarchus ap. Diod. 17.117.2, cf. 3–4, and Ephippus of Olynthus ap. Athen. 10.434, who suggests a syncope brought on by attempting to down the contents of a giant 12-pint cup.

89. Plut. Alex. 77.1–3; Arrian 7.27; QC 10.10.14–17; Justin 12.14; Paus. 8.18.4. For Apollodorus and Peithagoras cf. Berve, APG, II, nos. 101 and 618, pp. 55–6, 310.

90. Bosworth, op. cit., pp. 114 ff.

91. Badian, JHS 81 (1961), 36 (= MP, p. 226), n. 151.

92. Alexander the Great, pp. 256–8.

93. Theophr. HP 7.15.4, 9.11.5 ff.

94. Bosworth, op. cit., p. 136.

95. Demetr. De Eloc. §283; Plut. Phoc. 22.

96. Lucian, Quom. Hist. Conscr. 12.

97. On this see now Bosworth, op. cit., pp. 115 f.

98. See the useful article by E. N. Borza, ‘Cleitarchus and Diodorus' Account of Alexander’, Proc. Afr. Class. Assoc. 2 (1968), 25–45; and Hamilton, PA, pp. xlix ff.

99. vol. II, pp. 69 n. 1, 96–7, 131; contra, Badian, CQ, ns8 (1958), 153–7 and Borza-Wilcken, pp. xxiv ff.

100. Borza-Wilcken, pp. xxvii–viii. Truesdell S. Brown, reviewing Schachermeyr's biography of Alexander, AJPh 72 (1951), 74–7 complained of Schachermeyr's ‘contradictory’ interpretation as a ‘dangerous approach’ because ‘a contradictory Alexander can do anything, however noble or degrading, and we are left with no test for separating the true and false stories about him in our sources’. Verb. sap.

101. Sat. 10.168–172.

102. For an excellent brief notice of Droysen's position see Borza-Wilcken, pp. xii–xiii.

103. Ibid., p. xiii.

104. cf. Roberto Andreotti, Historia 1 (1950), 599: ‘Il profilo più netto é quello del soldato’. Cf. Schachermeyr, pp. 91 ff., 220, 233.

a Alexander himself, as we might expect, took great interest in Indian medical lore: when Ptolemy was hit by a poisoned arrow the king cured him with a plant now identified as rauwolfa serpentina, ‘the first of the modern tranquillizers but used in India for thousands of years to cure snakebite, among other things’ (Snyder, pp. 163–4, with note). The detailed attention which our sources lavish on this comparatively trivial incident testify to the widespread influence of Ptolemy's own memoirs, from which it was certainly drawn.

b This becomes clear from the fact that when the fleet reached Hormuz, its crews were in perfectly good shape; whereas once the army had lost touch with its floating supply-depot, Alexander's starving troops were very soon reduced to eating their pack animals.

c So, at least, Nearchus alleges: as we shall see (below, p. 441) it is by no means impossible that this ambitious Cretan had good personal reasons for falsifying the record when he afterwards came to compose his account of the Gedrosian disaster. Inter alia, he had to explain why fleet and army never achieved a rendezvous en route, and justify himself for failing to provide Alexander with supplies. The first omission he could blame on the monsoon's vagaries; for the second he seems to have been reduced to the assertion that Alexander in fact had supplies and to spare: if he left ten days' rations for the fleet, how could the fleet's commander then be held responsible for the army's near-starvation?

d The evidence of Plutarch (Alex. 71.4–5, Moral. 329A–D), combined with the use of the terms homonoia and koinonia, both philosophical commonplaces, does indeed suggest that Anaxarchus and his associates had been busy creating a suitable intellectual background for the reconciliation at Opis, which on both military and political grounds was absolutely essential for the implementation of Alexander's future projects. But the king's own beliefs, insofar as they can be determined at all, rest on the Deification Decree. All men might well be brothers; but — as Plutarch (Alex. 27.6) eloquently suggests — they were to be brothers under him.

e One motive generally assigned to his urge for further conquests (not in Arabia only but also, as here, in Italy) was a presumed ‘wish to rival and to pass beyond the limits of Dionysus' and Heracles' expeditions’: see Plut. Moral.326B, and Wilcken, pp. 225–6. He may also have planned to link India with Egypt.

f The most comprehensive attempt has been that of Lionel Pearson, n The Lost Histories of Alexander the Great, I (Providence, 1953).

g Scholars who in one way or another would seem to endorse such a view include Badian, Bosworth, Burn, Hamilton, Milns and Schachermeyr (see Bibliography); perhaps one should also add Andreotti, Historia 1 (1950), 583 ff.

Appendix

1. Our sources are Ptolemy and Aristobulus, who supplied most of the details reported by Arrian, 1.13–16 passim, and Plutarch, Alex. 16 – cf. Hamilton's commentary (PA) p. 38, citing Brunt, JHS 83 (1963), 27, n. 3 — together with whatever source, or sources, Diodorus (17.18.2–21.6) may have been following on this occasion: see Borza, ‘Cleitarchus and Diodorus' account of Alexander’, Proc. Afr. Class. Assoc. 2 (1968), 25–45. Justin, 11.6.10–13, provides a more than usually bald summary, while Polyaenus, 4.3.16, offers one tantalizingly ambiguous sentence (see above, p. 496).

2. ‘The Persian Battle Plan at the Granicus’, in Laudatores Temporis Acti: Studies in Memory of Wallace Everett Caldwell, Professor of History at the University of North Carolina, by his Friends and Students. Edited by Mary Frances Gyles and Eugene Wood Davis (Chapel Hill, Univ. of North Carolina Press, 1964, = vol. 46 of the James Sprunt Studies in History and Political Science), pp. 34–44. Hereafter cited as ‘Davis’.

3. Davis, p. 42.

4. Davis, p. 44. Arrian 1.16.3 makes it quite clear that Arsites regarded himself as ultimately responsible, not only for Persian policy at the Granicus, but also for its implementation. It has been represented to me that Arsites (Arrian 1.12.10) cannot give orders to the Council: they agree with him. But someone has to command in a battle, if not at the council-table, and the Granicus lay in Arsites' satrapy. Nor would Persian autocracy take well to the kind of tripartite quasi-democratic command which so sadly hampered the Sicilian Expedition at its outset. Arsites' position may have been akin to that of Agamemnon, i.e. an uncomfortable primus inter pares — but primusnevertheless.

5. Davis, p. 34.

6. See above, chapter 5, n. 7, p. 530, with reff. there cited; also Badian, Stud. Ehrenb., p. 43 and n. 32.

7. Arrian 1.12.9; Diod. 17.18.2–3. On the possibility of a Persian advance into Greece see above, chapter 6, pp. 212 ff., with nn. 47, 50–51. Tarn, CAH, vol. VI, p. 361 = AG, vol. I, p. 16, argues that Memnon did not in fact advocate carrying the war into Greece because when, later, he had the chance he failed to take advantage of it. But as Davis correctly points out, ‘Memnon had to show some successes before approaching the Greeks, and he was in the process of acquiring island bases in the Aegean when he died’ (p. 35, n. 3). cf. above, pp. 212, 216.

8. See above, chapter 5, p. 169, with nn. 32–3, for the respective treatment meted out to Percote, Lampsacus, Colonae and Priapus.

9. Arrian 1.12.9–10, 13.2; Plut. Alex. 16.1; Diod. 17.18.3–4.

10. F. Schachermeyr, Alexander der Grosse: Ingenium und Macht (Vienna, 1949), pp. 141–2, cf. Diod. 17.18.3.

11. cf. A. R. Burn, Persia and the Greeks (London, 1962), pp. 62–3.

12. op. cit., pp. 35–6, with n. 4; cf. K. J. Beloch, Griech. Gesch., 2nd edn (Berlin-Leipzig, 1922), vol. III, i, p. 624.

13. The Persians may well have underestimated the skill, experience, and determination of their opponents. It is also possible (see above, p. 170 n.) that Persian troops which might otherwise have been available were still tied up inEgypt: cf. Davis, p. 36; Olmstead, Hist. of the Persian Empire (Chicago, 1948), pp. 492–3, 496.

14. A. Janke, Auf Alexanders des Grossen Pfaden: Eine Reise durch Kleinasien (Berlin, 1904), pp. 136 ff. with pl. 5; J. F. C. Fuller, The Generalship of Alexander the Great (London, 1958), pp. 147–8; H. and F. Schreider, ‘In the footsteps of Alexander the Great’, Nat. Geogr. 133 (1968), 15.

15. op. cit., p. 148.

16. Arrian 1.14.4, cf. Diod. 17.19.1, 3.

17. op. cit., p. 37.

18. CAH, vol. VI, p. 361 = AG, vol. I, p. 16.

19. Wilcken-Borza, p. 84.

20. ibid.

21. loc. cit., n. 18 above.

22. Hellenistic Military and Naval Developments (Cambridge, 1930), p. 70.

23. Davis, p. 39.

24. Fuller, p. 149.

25. ibid., p. 148.

26. op. cit., p. 143.

27. ibid.

28. See esp. pp. 159 ff. and 170 ff.

29. Xen. Anab. 1.8.4 ff.; Plut. Artax. 8.

30. cf. Arrian 1.12.10; Diod. 17.18.2–3.

31. For a good account, and rebuttal, of the ‘Cleitarchan theory’ see E. N. Borza, ‘Cleitarchus and Diodorus' account of Alexander’, Proc. Afr. Class. Assoc. 2 (1968), 25–45.

32. Well refuted by Brunt, CQ, 12 (1962), 141–55.

33. C. B. Welles, Diodorus Siculus, vol. VIII (Loeb edn), pp. 13–14; cf. Borza op. cit., p. 26. Justin (11.6.10) places the battle in campis Adrasteis, which does not suggest an attack across-river, and might thus support Welles's hypothesis of Trogus as a contributory source for Bk 17 of Diodorus — though as Ellis remarks, JHS 91 (1971), 21, Trogus' ‘own relationship to his own sources is anybody's guess’.

34. Plut. Alex. 16.2; cf. Arrian 1.13.3–7; Diod. 17.19.3.

35. Arrian 1.14.5 ff.; Plut. Alex. 16.3 ff.; Diod. 17.19.3 ff.

36. cf. the remarks by Welles, op. cit., pp. 170–71, n. 1.

37. K. Lehmann, ‘Die Schlacht am Granikos’, Klio 11 (1911), 230–44 (not 340 as reported by Davis, p. 34 n. 2, who also misquotes Beloch's publication-date, and cites a page-title of Schachermeyr's as though it were an integral part of his text); J. Beloch,Griech. Gesch., vol. III, i (Berlin-Leipzig, 1922), pp. 623–5; Berve, APG, II, no. 606, p. 300, and n. 1; Milns, Alexander the Great (1968), pp. 56–7.

38. op. cit., p. 625, n. 1.

39. Davis, p. 34; cf. pp. 40–41.

40. Arrian 1.5.5–1.6.9 passim; cf. above chapter 4, pp. 131 ff., with nn. 30–32.

41. Arrian 1.13.3–7; Plut. Alex. 16.1–3.

42. Alex. 16.3.

43. 4.3.16. Professor Badian argues that this passage of Polyaenus is in fact derived from the Ptolemy-Aristobulus vulgate; that ἐξ ὑπερδεξίων here, as in Arrian, means simply ‘from above’, and that διαβαίνων pegs Alexander'smovements to an attack madethrough the river, so that Polyaenus' battle (outflanking movement included) takes place parallel with the Granicus rather than at right-angles to it. The former point cannot be proved either way: both usages exist. The latter phrase, I would argue, means no more than ‘at the crossing’ of the river, in a temporal sense — and whichever version we believe, it still remains true that the river was crossed.

44. L-S-J s.v. ὑπερδέξιος.

45. Diod. 17.19.6; cf. Arrian 1.14.1–3.

46. Fuller, p. 166.

47. cf. Brunt, JHS 83 (1963), 30–34.

48. But see Plut. Eum. 2.2.

49. Probably commanded by Petines and Niphates: see Arrian 1.14.4.

50. Arrian's figure of 1,000 seems to refer exclusively to Iranian losses.

51. So Tarn, vol. I, p. 16; Schachermeyr, pp. 140–41 with nn. 84–5; Hamilton, PA, p. 39.

52. Diod. 17.17.2; Polyaenus 5.44.4. For Memnon's appointment to the overall command see Diod. 17.29.1, cf. 23.5–6.

53. Arrian 2.2.2; QC 3.3.1.

54. Recruitment before Issus: Diod. 17.29.1; QC 3.2.9. The final total of 50,000: QC 5.11.5; Paus. 8.52.5. For arguments against these figures see above, p. 229, and footnote ad loc.

55. For the details see Plut. Alex. 16.6–7; Arrian 1.16.2, 6.

56. Diod. 17.14.1; Plut. Alex. 11.6; Aelian VH 13.7.

57. Diod. 13.19.2 (18,000 killed, 7,000 taken prisoners), cf. Thuc. 7.83–5.

58. See, e.g., besides the muster-lists already given, Diod. 17.19.5, 21.6; Plut. Alex. 16.6–7.

59. Arrian 1.14.1–3, cf. Diod. 17.19.6.

60. Arrian 1.15.1–2; Plut. Alex. 16.3–5.

61. Plut. Alex. 16.4–5, 7–8; cf. Diod. 17.20.3, 5, 6. Strabo, 15.3–18, C. 734, defines the σαυνίον as a hunting-spear, to be used for throwing from horseback (I owe this reference to Professor Badian).

62. Arrian 1.15.5 and elsewhere, e.g. Xen. Cyrop. 4.3.9, 6.2.16.

63. Arrian 1.15.1–3.

64. Some critics (e.g. Bryan) have actually suggested emending αἱ πεζαί here to αἱ Περσικαί, or adding Περσῶν after πεζαί: see Hamilton, PA, p. 41. His own comment is: ‘Plutarch has failed to realize that the Persians had no foot-soldiers apart from the mercenaries’; this of course is question-begging. Aristobulus (cf. above, n. 58) says that they did (16.6). It all depends on the degree of one's faith in Ptolemy's consistent veracity.

65. Arrian 1.16.2; Diod. 17.21.5.

66. Diod. 17.21.1, with Welles' note ad loc., pp. 176–7. This is the only example in the present context of the verb ἀκοντίζω being used in connection with the Persian cavalry. Even here Diodorus may be using it in the sense of throwing (undefined) missiles.

67. Davis, p. 41.

68. Hamilton, PA, p. 39, says that Alexander ‘realized the propaganda value of forcing a crossing in the teeth of Persian opposition’. This may be true, but I am inclined to doubt it. The best propaganda of all is a crushing victory, however that victory may be won. Strategy which hazards an initial defeat may leave one with no propaganda whatsoever. On systematic bias in Ptolemy's work see now the excellent article by R. M. Errington, CQ ns19 (1969), 233–42.

69. A similar thesis was recently propounded with great (but in my opinion mistaken) ingenuity for the battle of Marathon: see J. H. Schreiner, ‘The Battles of 490 B.C.’, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 196 (ns16) (1970), 97–112. It may be as well to say here that the first draft of this Appendix had been completed some time before Dr Schreiner's article came to my notice.

70. Plut. Alex. 14, cf. Diod. 17.93.4; Tarn, vol. II, pp. 338–46, and above, p. 124.

71. See above pp. 360 ff., and elsewhere.

72. e.g. at Miletus: Arrian 1.19.6, Plut. Alex. 17.1. The argument that Alexander could not afford their services until Miletus still does not explain the almost hysterical savagery with which he treated them after the Granicus. For a comparable incident we have to wait for his massacre of the Indian mercenaries at Massaga; see above, ch. 9, p. 383 and n. 50.

73. Arrian 1.16.6, cf. 2–3, with Plut. Alex. 16.6–7.

74. See above, chapter 4, pp. 147 ff., with nn. 54–7; for the use of the league as a justificatory instrument, Diod. 17.14.1–4, Arrian 1.9.6–10, Plut. Alex. 11.5–6, Justin 11.3.8–11.4.8.

75. Plut. Alex. 16.7.

76. Plut. Alex. 16.1–2; Arrian 1.13.3–5.

77. So Fuller, p. 149 (wrongly queried by Hamilton, PA, p. 39).

78. cf. Badian, TAPhA 91 (1960), 327–8.

79. JHS 91 (1971), 196.

80. There was nothing to stop such a scheme at this point. Alexander had not yet proved himself charismatically invincible; to the Macedonian barons he was simply a clever, dangerous, determined boy who had forced Parmenio'shand over the succession, cf. Badian, Phoenix 17 (1963), 249–50.

81. Plut. Alex. 16.3–4; cf. Arrian 1.14.6.

82. Nevertheless, the numerous occasions on which Callisthenes or sources dependent on him make a point of recording supposedly bad advice given by Parmenio to the king — advice which is invariably ignored, to the benefit of all concerned — is highly suggestive: see, e.g., Arrian 1.18.6 ff., Plut. Alex. 16.3, 29.8, 31.10 ff. We can hardly doubt that this was at Alexander's instructions: see now the excellent note by Hamilton, op. cit., p. 89, and for Alexander's characteristic desire to ‘compensate at once for his few failures’, Badian, Stud. Ehrenb. (1966), p. 47.

83. Arrian 1.14.6.

84. Arrian 1.16.4, cf. Plut. Alex. 16.8, Vell. Pat. 1.11.3–4.

85. It will hardly do simply to make Cleitarchus responsible for Diodorus' version, as Schachermeyr does (op. cit., pp. 504–5, n. 86) and thus discredit the latter at one stroke by the mere mention of an ‘unsound’ source, ‘der von den damaligen Gegensätzen im Hauptquartier so wenig wusste wie von einem nachmittägigen Schlachttermin’. Schachermeyr goes on to say: ‘Vermutlich hatte sich Kallisthenes über derartiges überhaupt nicht ausgesprochen.’ Notvermutlich at all, I would have thought; this is pure speculative fiction.

a There are, of course, exceptions to this rule. Professor Badian reminds me of a splendid instance in Cicero (De Orat. 2.241), discussing a speech by L. Crassus which claimed that Memmius chewed up his opponent Largus' arm. ‘You see how witty this kind of story is,’ Cicero says, ‘how elegant, how worthy of an orator — whether you have a true incident you can tell, which yet must be coloured by a few little lies, or whether you just make it up.’ Perhaps the counter-principle, exemplified by the totally fictitious ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’, is that if you are going to invent, do it on a really staggering scale, and thus disarm incredulity.

Sources of Information

a A History of Greek Philosophy, Cambridge, 1962, vol. I, p. xii.